Ghisaram vs State And Anr (2024:Rj-Jd:25237)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ghisaram vs State And Anr (2024:Rj-Jd:25237) on 29 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:25237]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 216/2006
Ghisaram S/o Shri Guna Ji, B/c Meena, R/o Meno Ki Dhani, Dari,
P.S. Gudaendala, District Pali.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State of Rajasthan.
2.      Surja Ram S/o Shri Motaram, B/c Meena, R/o Dari, P.S.
        Gudaendala, District Pali.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner            :     Mr. N.S. Rathore
For Respondent No.1       :     Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.
For Respondent No.2       :     Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
                                by Mr. Praveen Vyas



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 29/05/2024

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, challenge has been made to the judgment of acquittal dated 07.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case No.77/2005, whereby the accused respondent No.2 acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 325, 324 and 307 of IPC.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record of the case, this Court feels that the learned Sessions Judge has very prudently appreciated the evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution and, thus, reached on the conclusion that the prosecution was miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:36:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25237] (2 of 3) [CRLR-216/2006]

3. For the purpose of satisfaction so as to examine the legality, this Court has also gone through statement of PW-2 Ghisaram and found that there are several discrepancies and even contradictions in between the statements recorded during the trial and during the investigation. The cause behind it has not been explained. A serious discrepancy with regard to the part of the body, where the injuries were allegedly inflicted by the accused, has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. There seems to be a direct conflict in between the medical and legal evidence. The Exhibit-P/16 - Injury Report and statement of PW-10 Dr. J.N. Arora revealing injuries on the different part of the body, whilst contrary to that, PW-2 Ghisaram expressed the different part where the injuries were caused by the accused. PW-8 Bhairaram, PW-11 Hiraram and PW-13 Sohan Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the story of the prosecution.

4. This Court is convinced that the learned Sessions Judge has very aptly and prudently examined the material available on record. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case every shadow of reasonable doubt and whenever a serious doubt emerges in the story of the prosecution, certainly the benefit of which should be given to the accused. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in passing the judgment impugned. Otherwise also there is a presumption of innocence, which was already existing in favour of the accused respondent No.2, has further been strengthened by a judgment of acquittal passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:36:53 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:25237] (3 of 3) [CRLR-216/2006]

5. In such cases, unless it is shown that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of material available on record or unless it is shown that the findings are based on misappreciation of the evidence or the same is passed contrary to law; the Upper Court should not interfere; even if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused ought to have been accepted.

6. Reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162 OF 2011).

7. In view of the above, there is no force in the instant criminal revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 07.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case No.77/2005 is affirmed.

8. Record be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J Abhishek Kumar S.No.37 (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:36:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)