Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 510 (RAJ)

DEVI LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-02-13

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar, by which the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Devi Lal gave an information to the police to the effect that he was not in a good relation with his son Prahlad. He used to visit Guddi Bhat for last about 3-4 years. On 07.11.2009, both he and Guddi Bhat went to Police Station for inquiring about previous complaint, which was filed against one Mahaveer Godara. The ASI was not present in the Police Station. When the ASI came there after about 45 minutes, they told him that one red coloured Scorpio vehicle along with one motor-cycle was circling near the house of Guddi. The ASI agreed to go and see the vehicle. When they reached the house of Guddi then Sandeep and son of his uncle Billu came there. Sandeep fired the pistol. The pallets hit on his back side. Due to which he received pallet injuries. The accused fled away. On this report, police registered a case and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh-Headquarter-Nohar where the charges of the case was framed against the accused-respondents. 3. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. Several documents were exhibited and thereafter, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was examined from the defence side. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh-Headquarter-Nohar acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that the learned trial court has not considered the material aspect of the matter and ignored the statements and other material available on record; and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents in this case. He prayed that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that the learned trial court has not considered the material aspect of the matter and ignored the statements and other material available on record; and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents in this case. He prayed that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and rightly acquitted the accused-respondents. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. It is not disputed that the FIR in the instant case was registered on the next day of the occurrence. The complainant Devi Lal himself stated that ASI-Chhitar Mal was present when the occurrence took place but yet the FIR was not registered on the same day. It has also come on record that the complainant-Devi Lal named Sandeep Bhat son of Billu and Santosh but later on he changed the story and the present respondents were impleaded so the police did not file any challan against Sandeep Bhat son of Billu and Santosh in this case. All these material aspects were examined by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused-respondents. It has also come on record that there are material contradictions, discrepancies and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses so also the injuries so received by the complainant has not been corroborated with the medical report. No medical report was submitted by the prosecution, to prove that the injury received by the complainant was caused by the gunshot. The recovery witnesses have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. Moreover, after 14 days of the incident, the complainant changed the name of assailants and impleaded the present respondents in this case. Under these circumstances, the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused-respondents in this case from the charges levelled against them. 7. Moreover, after 14 days of the incident, the complainant changed the name of assailants and impleaded the present respondents in this case. Under these circumstances, the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused-respondents in this case from the charges levelled against them. 7. In Mrinal Das & 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." 8. 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:-- "7. 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. 8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for. 9. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for. 9. Thereafter, in the said case after discussing a large number of judgments it was observed as under:-- "10. 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 of this Court 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 High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had Us grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience." 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal filed by the complainant fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.