Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40162)
2023 Latest Caselaw 9930 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9930 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40162) on 21 November, 2023

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2023:RJ-JD:40162]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1184/2023

1.       Pratap Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
         R/o Village Kaamaliya, P.s. Dhamotar, Pratapgarh.
2.       Manohar Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 40
         Years, R/o Village Kaamaliya, P.s. Dhamotar, Pratapgarh.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Badri Lal S/o Shri Unkar Lal, R/o Village Kaamliya, P.s.
         Dhamotar, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh.
3.       Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Badri Lal, R/o Village Kaamliya, P.s.
         Dhamotar, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh.
4.       Nilesh S/o Shri Badri Lal, R/o Village Kaamliya, P.s.
         Dhamotar, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

21/11/2023

The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision

petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 14.06.2023 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Apeal No. 65/2020

whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the

judgment dated 18.08.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pratapgarh, whereby, the learned Judge acquitted the

respondents for offence under Section 341, 324, 325/34 IPC.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged

a written report to the effect that he is is having ownership on the

[2023:RJ-JD:40162] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1184/2023]

land in village Kaamaliya and there is a way for ingress and egress

to his field. It was alleged that Badri lal created obstacle by

erecting pillars. On 04.02.2015, when he and his brother Manohar

Singh were going to reap the crop, the accused respondents came

there carrying iron rods, knives and lathis and attacked them. It

was stated that the petitioners sustained injuries of knife and iron

rods.

On this report, the FIR was registered for offence under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 34 IPC and the police started

investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against

the respondents. Thereafter, charges were framed against the

respondents for offence under Section 341, 324, 325/34 IPC. The

accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined seven

witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement

of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, however, no

documents were produced in defence.

After conclusion of trial, the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate acquitted the respondents from offence under Sections

341, 324 and 325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.08.2020.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the

learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed

by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.06.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Courts

below without going through the entire record and evidence

acquitted the respondents for 341, 324 and 325/34 IPC. It is

[2023:RJ-JD:40162] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1184/2023]

submitted that there were cross cases between the parties and in

cross case, the petitioners have been convicted for offence under

Section 447, 323/34 IPC but acquitted the accused respondents in

the present case. It is submitted that the accused respondents

caused injuries to the petitioners and the petitioner no.1 received

grievous injury on his hand whereas, the injuries caused to the

complainant in the cross case are simple in nature and not

sustained by any weapon. Thus the judgment of the Courts below

are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back

to the trial court for passing fresh order.

I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through

the material on record.

From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the

learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondents

have been acquitted on the basis of statement of the witnesses as

omnibus allegations were levelled against the respondents. The

courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and

speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the

charges against the accused respondents beyond reasonable

doubt.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have

failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which

interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under

challenge.

[2023:RJ-JD:40162] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1184/2023]

In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :

2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has

laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a

judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram

alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."

There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal

against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The

preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial

difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while

[2023:RJ-JD:40162] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1184/2023]

dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view

the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted

by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached

by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the

acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the

appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the