Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 599 (RAJ)

Prabhu Ram v. Goma Ram

2025-03-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1.Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397(i) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 24.10.2005, passed by learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Didwana in Cr. Case No.128/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offences punishable under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.06.2003, the petitioner/complainant gave a written report at Police Station to the effect that the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 assaulted him with lathies. On the basis of the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused- respondent Nos.1 to 6 and framed charges against them for offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . The accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 24.10.2005 acquitted the accused- respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC , despite the fact that there is ample evidence against them for commission of the alleged offence. 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 Nos.1 to 6 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . 7. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 6 after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. The judgment of the trial court is just and proper and warrants no interference from this Court. 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 Nos.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections 147 , 34 1 , 323 /34 IPC . 10. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 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. 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. 12. 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 judgment under challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.