Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jhalla Ram vs State And Ors. ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/012591]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 212/2014
Jhalla Ram osn of Shri Shiv Lal, resident of village Siwas, Tehsil
Desuri, Khinwara Police Station, District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Bhola Ram son of Shri Nanda Ji
3. Heera Lal son of Shri Bhola Ram
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 both by caste Teli, residents of
Siwas, Khinwara Police Station, District Pali
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/04/2023
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the
judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Special
Judge SC/ST (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, Pali in
sessions case No.30/2010 vide order dated 13.01.2014
whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from
the charges by giving benefit of doubt to them.
2. A perusal of the order-sheet of the instant appeal reflecting
that even on the first occasion when the matter was listed
before this Court on 04.04.2014, none appeared on behalf of
the appellant to pursue the cause, however, showing
[2023/RJJD/012591] (2 of 4) [CRLA-212/2014]
benevolence, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had issued
notices.
3. Now, nine years have elapsed and on several occasions, the
file has shunted around the office of the Registry and the
Court repeatedly.
4. No steps have been taken up by the appellant in this entire
period. It seems that he is not interested in the prosecution
of appeal. Yesterday, the matter was listed before this Court
but even in two round, none had appeared for the appellant.
Today also, none has appeared to represent the appellant.
5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Gone through the judgment impugned.
7. What is emanating from the impugned judgment that a
criminal prosecution came to be launched at the behest of the
appellant on 23.06.2009 alleging therein that on 09.06.2009,
when he was at his home, suddenly the accused respondents
barged into his house and made an assault, gave beating to
him and used abusive language indicating his caste.
8. After registration of the F.I.R., the accused respondents were
arrested, the usual investigation was conducted and charge-
sheet got submitted in the trial Court, where the cognizance
was taken and thereafter charges were framed. As many as
17 witnesses were produced on behalf of the petitioner
thereafter, an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
sought from the accused respondents wherein they claimed
innocence and denied from allegation. Thereafter, the matter
was heard by learned trial Court by giving opportunity to both
of the parties and post meticulous examination of the
[2023/RJJD/012591] (3 of 4) [CRLA-212/2014]
evidence; passed the judgment of acquittal which is under
assail before this Court.
9. Shri A.R. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, would submit
that the judgment impugned has been passed by the learned
trial Court, after threadbare discussion of the evidence which
does not require interference.
10. I have minutely gone through the judgment. The learned trial
Judge has carefully examined the testimonies of relevant
prosecution witnesses. The fact that there was a dispute
between the parties in relation to a common partition wall
and for that on the date of incident, both the parties
exchanged hot altercation, whereupon the Police initiated a
proceeding under Section 107-151 of Cr.P.C. and took
preventive action. After 14 days of the incident, an altogether
different story set out in the F.I.R., on the truthfulness of
which the learned trial Court raised serious suspicion and this
Court concurs with the observations made by the Court
below. There was a direct conflict in between the medical and
ocular evidence. On one hand, it is stated that the victim
Bhanwar Lal has been beaten up by 4-5 persons, on the
contrary, when he was examined by a Doctor Anil Boda (PW-
15), he observed a simple abrasion on the wrist of the victim.
It is alleged that the victim received an injury of teeth bite
but no such injury was noticed by the Doctor. The several
flaws and discrepancies have been observed by the learned
trial Court which in my view are blatantly present in the case.
Thus, there appears no reason for interference in the
impugned judgment. Otherwise also normally the appellate
[2023/RJJD/012591] (4 of 4) [CRLA-212/2014]
Court should be very slow and should show reluctance in
making interference in the judgment of acquittal unless, it is
shown that the judgment of the acquittal is a product of
misappreciation of evidence or is in direct conflict of law
applicable in the matter or it is based upon non-consideration
of material available on record. No such things have been
noticed in the judgment impugned. Therefore, I concur with
the findings reached by the learned trial Judge, thus, there is
no force in the appeal, hence, the instant appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
17-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
