Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Muzib Rahman on 6 December, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:41280]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1110/2017
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Muzib Rahman Son Of Vaheed Ahmed, By Caste Musalman,
Resident Of Swaroopganj, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 21/07/2023
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 06/12/2023
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of
Rajasthan against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.07.2016
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road,
District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.59/2015 (51/2014) whereby
the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused-Mujeeb Rahman by
extending him benefit of doubt.
2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as
learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the
judgment impugned and other material available on record.
[2023:RJ-JD:41280] (2 of 3) [CRLA-1110/2017]
3. After careful scrutiny of the judgment impugned, it is
reflecting that the learned trial Judge has noted several
discrepancies and incongruities in the case of the prosecution and
thus, cogent reasons have been assigned for reaching on the
conclusion that the accused-respondent deserves to get benefit of
doubt. Learned trial Court found major contradictions between
the statements of P.W. 1 Afzal, who happens to be brother of the
victim, P.W. 4 Salma Banoo, wife of the victim and P.W. 5 Mohd.
Naseem, the victim himself. There is a serious conflict between
the manner of incident, nature of injury and the fact that after
receiving the injury victim Mohd. Naseem became unconscious.
The Medical Officer P.W. 6 Dr. Shaitan Kumar clearly deposed that
it was wrong to say that the victim got unconscious after injury
whereas all the prosecution witnesses stated different version to
that of the Medical Officer.
4. After perusing the judgment and pondering over the
reasoning given by the learned trial Judge, I am of the view that
learned trial Judge has not committed any error of law in passing
the judgment impugned and in extending benefit of doubt to the
appellant. This Court is of the view that until and unless, it is
shown that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-
consideration of the material available on record or the judgment
impugned has been passed in contravention of the legal provisions
or the finding of acquittal is based upon misappreciation of legal
evidence, the Court of appeal should show reluctance in making
[2023:RJ-JD:41280] (3 of 3) [CRLA-1110/2017]
interference. In the case at hand, no error of law has been found in
the well reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Court, therefore, there appears no ground to interfere
therein.
5. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant appeal, the
same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
189-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
