Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 274 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Khivraj, S/o Moolaram

2024-02-14

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent from offences under Sections 498-A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC vide judgment dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.56/2011. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2011, prosecutrix Smt. Dropadi @ Dariya gave a parcha bayan to the Police personnel at Government Hospital, to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with the accused-respondent eleven years ago according to hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the accused-respondent started harassing the prosecutrix mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. Out of the wedlock, two daughters were born. The complainant further stated that when she reached at school of her daughter, the accused-respondent came there and inflicted scissors injuries upon her. 3. On the said parcha bayan, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 498A, 324, 323, 307 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 24.08.2015 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 498A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 498A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 498A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC. 7. Learned counsel for accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial. 9. 7. Learned counsel for accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused- respondent from offence under Sections 498A, 324, 323 & 307 IPC. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State 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. 11. In the case of '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. 12. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (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. 12. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (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. 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 present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. Record of the trial court be sent back.