Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1178 (RAJ)

Rameshwarlal v. Bhagu Ram

2023-05-25

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner complainant to assail the judgment dated 03.11.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.7/2001, whereby the learned appellate court allowed the appeal preferred on behalf of the respondents and set aside the judgment dated 08.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Case No.343/2000 and acquitted them from the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner complainant submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Merta City on 01.08.2000 alleging inter alia that on 22.07.2000 at about 07.00 p.m., while he had gone to his house, the respondents armed with lathis came to his cabin, which was being used as a barber shop, broke the glass and threw the chairs, which caused him a loss of Rs.2000/-. While the respondents were causing damage, he reached there and tried to stop the accused, upon which, accused Bhaguram started slapping him. The accused also threatened him, therefore, he could not lodge the report in time. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the FIR (Ex.P/2) for the offences under Sections 447, 457, 323 and 427 IPC was registered. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the respondents for the above offences. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 457, 427 and 323 of the IPC, to which, the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the offences, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. They did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. After appreciation of the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 451 and 427 of the IPC while acquitting them from the charges under Sections 457 and 323 of the IPC. They did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. After appreciation of the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 451 and 427 of the IPC while acquitting them from the charges under Sections 457 and 323 of the IPC. However, instead of sending the accused to jail, the learned trial court gave them the benefit of probation and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant in lieu of the damage caused to his cabin. 3. Being aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned trial court, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta. Learned appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 03.11.2001 and acquitted the respondents from the charges under Sections 451 and 427 IPC. 4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate court, the complainant has preferred the instant revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has erred while acquitting the respondents. Learned trial court meticulously examined the evidence available on record and held the accused guilty for the offence under Section 451 and 427 of the IPC. The said finding of guilt did not require any interference. Hence, it is prayed that the revision may be allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court may be set aside and the judgment passed by the trial court may be upheld. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Learned trial court, after full-fledged trial, did not completely believe the prosecution story and that is why acquitted the respondents from the charges under Section 457 and 323 IPC, but convicted them for the offences under Sections 451 and 427 IPC. The learned appellate court after thorough re-appreciation of the evidence came to a conclusion that reliable evidence is not available on record to believe the prosecution story. The incident allegedly happened on 22.07.2000, whereas the FIR came to be filed on 01.08.2000. The learned appellate court after thorough re-appreciation of the evidence came to a conclusion that reliable evidence is not available on record to believe the prosecution story. The incident allegedly happened on 22.07.2000, whereas the FIR came to be filed on 01.08.2000. No satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the FIR. An exaggerated version of the story has been portrayed in the written report. Hence, the learned appellate court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal was allowed and they were acquitted from the charges. 9. The incident is of the year 2000. A period of more than two decades has passed since then. One of the respondents is reported to be aged more than 85 years. They have reportedly paid compensation to the complainant. 10. This court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned appellate court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not find any error therein, either factual or legal, requiring interference. 11. In this background, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. All pending applications are disposed of. The record be returned to the trial court.