Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2788 (RAJ)

Dharampal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellantcomplainant against the judgment dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Suratgarh, Sri Gangangar in Session Case No.06/2013 (106/2012) (CIS No.71/2014) whereby the learned Judge acquitted the respondents from the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the on 06.03.2011 the appellant lodged a criminal complaint against all the accused-respondents alleging therein that he along with his brother named Ghamandaram and sister-in-law name Dhapi went to a plot situated in front of their house and started digging the ground for the purpose of construction, thereupon all the accused-respondents with common intention came there and started assaulting the appellant and his family members by lathis. On hearing hue and cry of the appellant, his father Begram and one Ramlal also came there to rescue them. 3. On the basis of information received, Police registered the FIR against the respondents under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. The respondents-party also lodged a cross FIR against the appellant and his family members for offence under Sections 325/34, 307, 307/34, 323, 341 IPC. The police after thorough investigation filed chargesheet in both the FIRs. 4. The trial Court thereafter framed charges against the accused respondents. The accused respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accused-respondents. 6. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 18.07.2019. Hence, this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. It is further argued that the trial court has committed an illegality in discarding the evidence of witnesses without any cogent reason. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against them. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the appellant. 9. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against them. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the appellant. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. There are contradictions in the statements of Dharmpal (PW-1) which were considered by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents after considering the entire facts and evidence on record. Learned trial court has observed in the impugned judgment that the cross FIR was lodged by the respondents against the appellant. Thus, the trial court after appreciating the entire evidence has rightly acquitted the respondents. The findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. 11. In the case of Mrinal Das and others v. The State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479 , decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "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. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal." 13. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal." 13. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.