Ramesh Chandra Meena S/O ... vs Yogesh Jorwal @ Bhopal @ Annu S/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1817 Raj/2

   [2023/RJJP/002163]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

                        D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 59/2022

    Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Chitarmal Meena, Aged About 47

    Years, Resident Of Near Getolav Road, Near Khadi Bag, Dausa,

    PS Kotwali District Dausa

                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
    1.      Yogesh Jorwal @ Bhopal @ Annu S/o Vijay Ram, Aged

            About 28 Years, Resident Of Khedi Merela, Police Station

            Todabhim District Karauli



    2.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain Advocate.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment 08/02/2023

Heard on admission.

This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal dated

03.09.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in the matter of

prosecution of Respondent No.1 for alleged commission of

offences under Sections 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim would

argue that despite there being reliable ocular testimony of the

mother of the deceased (PW-11) and corroboration of the same by

the Forensic report regarding cause of death of the deceased by

[2023/RJJP/002163] (2 of 3) [CRLAD-59/2022]

bullet injury and also seizure of pistol from the accused, acquittal

has been ordered which is perverse and contrary to reliable piece

of evidence both direct and circumstantial in nature.

We have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal.

We find that in order to grant acquittal on benefit of doubt,

the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration that the FIR

itself was lodged by the so called eye-witness, the mother of the

deceased, after two months of the incident. Further, we find that

though there is an evidence with regard to recovery of a pistol

from the accused, there is no evidence collected by the

prosecution with regard to the bullet which is alleged to have

caused injury to the deceased. In fact, no bullet was recovered

from the body, nor any exit wound was found. Other signs of

bullet injury were also not found, but only puncture wound was

noted in the postmortem report. There is no report of the armorer

or ballistic export to establish live link between the firearm

allegedly seized from the accused. There is not even an evidence

of the firearm capable of being fired. The learned Trial Court

taking into consideration such serious discrepancies in the case of

the prosecution, has acquitted the respondent-accused granting

benefit of doubt.

It is well settled that the scope of interference against

judgment of acquittal is extremely limited. Once the view taken by

the learned Trial Court is plausible and there is possibility of more

than one view out of which, one view has been preferred by the

Trial Court and acquittal has been granted by giving benefit of

doubt, no interference is called for.

[2023/RJJP/002163] (3 of 3) [CRLAD-59/2022]

Therefore, in view of the above, we do not find any ground

to interfere with the impugned judgment of the acquittal.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Sanjay Kumawat-49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)