Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1355 (RAJ)

Ram Karan v. Ganga Ram

2015-07-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur in cr. appeal no. 97/2004 (107/2004) by which the respondents have been acquitted and the judgment and conviction order dated 4.11.2004 passed by Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.2, Jaipur was quashed and set aside. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner has submitted a Tehrir report before the PS-Bagru and upon this report an FIR No.66/2003 was registered and investigation was started. After investigation, police filed challan against respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC before the trial court. The learned trial court framed the charges against respondents for the offence under Section 341, 323, 325 and 325/34 IPC, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as above vide order dated 4.11.2004. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as above vide order dated 4.11.2004. Relevant part whereof is reproduced as under: ^^vr% vfHk;qDrx.k xaxkjke iq= ghjkyky] lqjs'k iq= xaxkjke o jkelgk; iq= xaxkjke tkfr jSxj fuoklh;ku fBdfj;k] iqfyl Fkkuk cx:] ftyk&tiqj dks mu ij vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 323 o 325 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksi ds fy, nks"kh ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij vfHk;qDrx.k lqjs'k o jkelgk; dks rks vijk/kh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds rgr vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSa fd ;fn izR;sd vfHk;qDr 5]000@& :i;s dk Lo;a dk ca/k&i= blh jkf'k dk izfrHkwfr&i= bl vk'k; dk izLrqr djs fd og rhu o"kZ dh vof/k rd 'kkafr ,oa ln~O;ogkj cuk;s j[ksaxs] vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxs rFkk vnkyr tc Hkh ryc djsxh] ltk Hkqxrus gsrq mifLFkr gks tkosaxs rks mUgsa ifjoh{kk ij fjgk fd;k tkos lkFk gh /kkjk ¼5½ vijk/kh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr izR;sd vfHk;qDr 1]000&1]000@& :i;s U;k;ky; esa tek djkosxk] tks jkf'k ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy@fuxjkuh et:c jkedj.k dks fu;ekuqlkj mlds vkbZ pksVksa dh {kfriwfrZ gsrq fn;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSaA vfHk;qDr xaxkjke iq= ghjkyky dks ml ij vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 323 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksi ds fy;s 6 ekg ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o 500@& :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS] vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M vfHk;qDr 15 fnu dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl vkSj Hkqxrsxk ,oa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds vkjksi ds fy, blh vfHk;qDr xaxkjke dks rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa ,d gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gS] vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M vfHk;qDr ,d ekg dk vfrfjDr lk/kkj.k dkjkokl HkqxrsxkA vfHk;qDr xaxkjke dks nh xbZ nksuksa ltk;sa lkFk&lkFk pysaxhA vfHk;qDr xaxkjke }kjk bl izdj.k esa Hkqxrh xbZ iqfyl U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dks ewy ltk esa lek;ksftr fd;k tkosA^^ 3. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 4.11.2004, the petitioner filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur. The Appellate Court after hearing both the parties, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 4.11.2004 and acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them vide order dated 8.6.2006. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 4.11.2004, the petitioner filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur. The Appellate Court after hearing both the parties, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 4.11.2004 and acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them vide order dated 8.6.2006. Relevant portion of judgment of appellate court reads as under: ^^ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k xaxkjke] jkelgk; o lqjs'k dh vksj ls izLrqr mijksDr vkijkf/kd vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ifjr vkykSP; fu.kZ; o n.Mkns'k fnukad 4-11-2004 viklr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 323 o 325 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA muds tekur eqpyds fujLr fd, tkrs gSaA^^ 4. Against the said order dated 8.6.2006, the petitioner complainant prefers this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner no.1 was expired, therefore, revision as against him stands abated. It is also submitted that the appellate court has not properly considered the relevant documents as also statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence impugned order dated 8.6.2006 be set aside. The learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the material and evidence on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by appellate court and contended that the appellate courts has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. 7. 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." 8. 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 appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. It may be stated that in revision 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 appellate 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. Revision dismissed.