Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Mejar Singh And Anr. ... on 2 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:41797]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 523/2007
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mejar Singh
2. Jela Singh @ Jernel Singh
Both sons of Harnam Singh, B/c Raisikh, R/o Fatehpur, Tehsil
Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Bhadu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 26.04.2006, passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh in
Regular Cr. Case No.472/2003, whereby the learned trial court
acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under
Sections 452, 323, 384 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2003, complainant
Madan Singh submitted a report before Police Station Sangariya
inter-alia stating therein that he is doing the job of Munim at NEW
Bricks Company, Fatehpur. Yesterday, when the complainant was
sitting in his office, both the accused-respondents along with other
other persons came and threatened the complainant to close the
Bhatta. It was further alleged that today also accused Jela Singh
came in a drunken condition and again threatened the
[2023:RJ-JD:41797] (2 of 3) [CRLA-523/2007]
complainant. On this report, Police registered the case and started
investigation.
After completion of investigation, Police filed challan against
the accused persons for offence under Sections 323, 452, 384
IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
accused persons, which they denied and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses
in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-
persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, one
witness was examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 26.04.2006 acquitted the accused-
respondents from the offences as mentioned earlier.
Hence, the State has preferred this appeal against the
acquittal of the accused-respondents.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned
trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses
in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and
serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents from
the offences. Counsel submits that from the evidence available on
record, a clear cut case is made out against the accused-
respondents. But the learned trial court without considering the
evidence in a proper manner acquitted the respondents for the
aforesaid offences, therefore the judgment of acquittal deserves to
be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial
court for passing a fresh order.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of
[2023:RJ-JD:41797] (3 of 3) [CRLA-523/2007]
the matter while passing the order of acquittal. The learned trial
court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which
requires no interfere from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
In this case, PW-1 Bhupendra has specifically deposed in this
statement that no one had caused injury to him. PW-5 Moolchand
also denied the fact of causing injury to the injured by the
accused-respondents. Since, the injured himself has denied the
fact of causing injury to him by any one, thus the learned trial
court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the
offences under Sectinos 452, 323, 384 IPC. The prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The order
passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order
and the same does not warrant any interfere from this Court.
The impugned judgment is perfectly justified and the same
does not suffer from any perversity and infirmity.
Hence, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
46-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
