Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 712 (RAJ)

Kumbha Ram S/o Mota Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-01

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.06.2003, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.61/2001, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.2001, complainant Kumbharam submitted a written report at Police Station, Bikaner to the effect that on 13.07.2001, the son of accused-respondent No.2 unauthorizedly entered into the field of his brother Devaram and abused him using caste oriented words. Thereafter, again on 18.07.2001 at about 8:30 AM, accused-respondent No.2 Kalu Singh came armed with lathi and inflicted injuries on the hand and mouth of the brother of the complainant. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-respondent No.2 in the Court concerned. 3. The learned Special Court, SC/ST Act framed charge against the accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused-respondent No.2, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as five witnesses were examined. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.06.2003 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 6. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. 7. 6. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record. 8. 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 No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 323, 341, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-complainant 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. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 10. 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. 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. 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.” 11. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/revision 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/revision against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision 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 petitioner 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. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.