Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2213 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman Bawariya

2019-08-19

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. State has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the trial Court whereby respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. FIR No. 157 dated 05.06.2008 was registered at Police Station Manpur, District Dausa u/S. 460 IPC on a report lodged by the complainant-Chirangi Lal (PW1). As per the FIR, prosecution case, in-brief, is that some unknown persons had inflicted injuries to Kesar Devi, Basanti Lal, Puran, Vijay and Ashok. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the respondents. 4. Charges were framed against the respondents under Section 460, 302, 324, 326 and 323 IPC. 5. Injured - Puran Prajapat while appearing in the witness box as PW7 had admitted that it was a dark night and he had not seen the respondents running away from the spot. PW8-Gyrasi had admitted in his cross-examination that when he had reached the spot, the injured were not in their consciousness Injured PW9 - Vijay had not deposed with regard to the involvement of the respondents in the crime. PW10-Chote Lal had deposed in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded by the police after 20 days of the incident. He also admitted that he could not tell the colour of the clothes worn by the respondents at the time of incident as it was a dark night. He could not tell to that who were the persons who were talking to each other. He had not narrated the conversation heard by him to any person. When he had talked to Ashok, he had not disclosed to him about the conversation heard by him. PW6 - Ashok had stated in his statement, Ex. D1 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. that he suspected that the crime had been committed by the respondents. However he admitted that he had not lodged any report with regard to threats given to them, 2/3 days prior to the incident by the respondents. 6. Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondents with regard to the charges framed against them has taken into consideration the fact that the names of the respondents were not mentioned in the FIR. No test identification parade of the respondents was got conducted to establish their identity. The alleged articles which had been stolen, were not recovered during investigation from the respondents. 7. No test identification parade of the respondents was got conducted to establish their identity. The alleged articles which had been stolen, were not recovered during investigation from the respondents. 7. Since the respondents had not been got identified from the injured witnesses, no reliance could be placed on the statements of the injured witnesses recorded during trial with regard to the involvement of the respondents. 8. Foot print/mould recovered from the spot, also did not match with the respondents. During investigation eucalyptus sticks were recovered at the instance of the respondents. However, recovery witnesses in this regard did not support the prosecution case during trial. The sticks at the instance by the respondents were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It has also noticed by the trial Court that the sticks were recovered from the open space. Thus, in the present case, learned trial Court had rightly held the prosecution case was rendered doubtful. 9. PW6 - Ashok had involved the respondents in the case merely on the basis of suspicion. There was no connecting material on record to establish the involvement of the respondents in the crime-in-question. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 11. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others vs. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to' come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed." 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the acquittal of the respondents and the impugned judgment calls for no interference.