Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1276 (RAJ)

Goru Ram S/o Bega Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-05-08

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 29.08.2024, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, in Cr. Appeal No.148/2018 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Cr. Original Case No.484/2016, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents No.2 to 13 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.259/2001 was registered at Police Station Rawatsar, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC with the allegation that the accused- respondents No.2 to 13 tampered with the documents and prepared a forged will of Bega Ram, from which he claimed the property. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents No.2 to 13. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 13 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 13 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, they examined one witness viz., DW/1 Manphool. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 25.10.2018 acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 6. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2024. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused respondents No.2 to 13 regarding commission of offence but the learned Courts below did not consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences. 8. The learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-respondents after due appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the impugned judgments are just and proper warranting no interference from this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as considered the material available on record. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below, it appears that the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments have considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before them in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. Thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused- respondents from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 11. In the case of Mrinal Das & others v. State of Tripura, 2011 (9) SCC 479 , 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. 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. 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. 14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, 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 judgments under challenge. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned order and thus, this court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings given by the courts below. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. Record of the courts below, if received, be sent back forthwith.