Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohanlal vs State And Ors on 15 February, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:6270]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 545/2000
Sohanlal S/o Banna Ram, By Caste Mali, R/o Nimbera, Tehsil
Raipur District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Deva Ram S/o Nathu Ram
3. Ganga Ram S/o Nathu Ram
4. Nathu Ram S/o Heeraji By Caste Mali
5. Chatra Ram S/o Gokul Ram By Caste Daroga,
(Respondents No.2 to 5 all R/o Nimbera, Tehsil Raipur
District Pali)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 07/02/2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 15/02/2024.
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge is made to the judgment dated 03.07.2000 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran in
Criminal Regular Case No.473/1986 whereby the learned Court
has acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections
323, 324 & 325 of the IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor for the State and have minutely gone through the
impugned judgment as well as through the record of the case.
[2024:RJ-JD:6270] (2 of 3) [CRLR-545/2000]
3. It is appearing that the learned trial Court has meticulously
examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
against the accused respondents. There is an inordinate delay in
lodging of the FIR thus, the possibility of embellishment and false
implication cannot be ruled out.
4. The major discrepancy and serious contradiction between
the statements of victim Mangi Lal and the witness Chatra Ram
also give rise to a reasonable suspicion with regard to the
credibility of their statements. Dr. D.K. Gupta (P.W.5) admitted in
cross examination that X-rays were not taken before him and as
such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that
victim Mangi Lal (P.W.4) received a fracture on the finger of the
left hand. The injury reports were submitted to the police after a
long delay which creates further doubt on its genuineness,
particularly, in the situation where the MLC was not prepared and
upon the requisition of the police rather it was prepared by a
doctor who resides at a different place.
5. It is notable that the accused persons also received injuries
for which prosecution under Sections 307 and 447 of the IPC was
launched for and no FIR was lodged at the instance of the
petitioner rather it came to be lodged only when he submitted a
complaint before the Magistrate for sending the same under
Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Several issues have raised by the
learned trial Court over the genesis of the incident and
genuineness of the allegation, which casts a serious doubt
regarding the story set out by the prosecution. After minutely
going through he judgment and scanning the material available
[2024:RJ-JD:6270] (3 of 3) [CRLR-545/2000]
on record this Court would rather like to concur with the finding of
the learned trial Court instead of making any interference therein.
6. This Court is also of the opinion that the appellate
Court/higher Court should show reluctance in making interference
in a judgment of acquittal until and unless it is felt that the
judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of
the material or misappreciation of the evidence or pass against
the legal preposition.
7. A presumption of innocence which was already existing in
favour of the accused got further fortification by the judgment of
acquittal passed by a competent jurisdiction and as such, the
presumption has further been strengthened. In this situation, a
well reasoned judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with
until the compelling circumstances are brought on record.
8. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court
finds no force in the revision petition, the same is hereby
dismissed as no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the
judgment has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner. Thus,
the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed.
9. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
1-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
