Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 388 (RAJ)

Girwar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 62/2008, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the charge under Sections 323/34, 341, 325/34, 307/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused respondent(s). After investigation, the police filed a challan in the competent court against the accused respondents. Thereafter trial court framed charges against the accused respondent/s for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341, 325/34, 307/34 IPC, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused respondent/s were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent/s vide his impugned order dated 9th July, 2009. 3. Against the said order, this revision petition was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by the learned trial court, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them inspite of the fact that the injuries have been caused to the petitioner / complainant and his other family members, is bad in law. He has further contended that the prosecution witnesses proved the prosecution case beyond all the reasonable doubt, but by ignoring the statement of prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them. He has further contended that the learned trial court committed an error in ignoring the fact that the accused respondents committed the offence and caused injuries to the petitioner / complainant and his other family members and such fact is duly proved by the statement of prosecution witnesses as well as the medical evidence. The accused respondents failed to controvert the material and evidence on record, which proves the fact that the accused respondents have committed the offence. Hence the Cr. Revision Petition should be allowed and the order of the court below be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. The accused respondents failed to controvert the material and evidence on record, which proves the fact that the accused respondents have committed the offence. Hence the Cr. Revision Petition should be allowed and the order of the court below be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the accused respondents have contended that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents and passed a detailed order after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties, hence no interference is required by this Court in the order passed by the Court below. 6. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- " Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 . Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 7. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondents and also gone through the record of the case. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondents and also gone through the record of the case. 10. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and the revision petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.Revision dismissed. *******