Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gyna Ram And Ors vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:9454) on 23 February, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:9454]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 823/2013

1. Gyna Ram S/o Shri Uma Ram, B/c Meghwal,
2. Rewat Ram S/o Jasa Ram, B/c Meghwal,
3. Sarvan S/o Shri Rupa Ram, B/c Meghwal,
All R/o Jaghaniya Bikan, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                      Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Jaman Singh S/o Shri Guman Singh, B/c Rajput
3. Magan Singh S/o Shri Khum Singh, B/c Rajput,
4. Sheodan Singh S/o Shri Khum Singh, B/c Rajput,
5. Kandas S/o Shri Mool Das, B/c Swami,
All R/o Jaghaniya Bikan, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
                                  Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

23/02/2024

Instant criminal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated

22.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Special Case No.8/2010

whereby, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-

respondents No.2 to 5 from offence under Sections 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST Act and convicted them for offence under Section 352 IPC

but instead of awarding any sentence, the trial court gave benefit

of probation under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act to the

accused-respondents No.2 to 5. A fine of Rs.1,500/- was also

[2024:RJ-JD:9454] (2 of 5) [CRLA-823/2013]

imposed upon each of the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 under

Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2009, complainants

submitted a complaint before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ratangarh to the effect that 09.08.2009 in the

panchayat meeting, the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 abused

the complainants by using caste oriented abusive language and

again on 10.09.2009 in a public place, the accused-respondents

No.2 to 5 abused the complainant with caste oriented words and

insulted them. The court sent the report under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. to PS Rajaldesar. Upon which, FIR No.85/2009 was

registered against the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 by the

Police and investigation was commenced.

After investigation, the police filed challan against the

accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 for offence under Sections 352 IPC

and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the charges of the

case were framed against the accused-respondents No.2 to 5,

which they denied and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten

witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statements of accused-respondents No.2 to 5 were recorded under

section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, eight witnesses were examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 22.08.2013 acquitted the accused-

respondents No.2 to 5 from offence under 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act

but convicted them for offence under Section 352 IPC and after

due admonition gave them the benefit of probation under Section

3 of Probation of Offenders Act and also imposed a fine of

[2024:RJ-JD:9454] (3 of 5) [CRLA-823/2013]

Rs.1,500/- upon each of the accused under Section 5 of Probation

of Offender Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants-complainants submits

that specific averment has been made by the complainant as well

as witnesses regarding using caste oriented language against the

complainant by the accused-respondents No.2 to 5, but the

learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 for

offence under Sections Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and after due

admonition, also gave benefit of probation to them for offence

committed under Section 352 IPC. Counsel submits that while

passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not

considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its

right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be

quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5

ought to have been convicted offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST Act and also sentenced for offence under Section 352 IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 to 5 have vehemently opposed the prayer made

by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the order of

acquittal is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference

from this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment

passed by the trial.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the

learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has

considered each and every aspect of the matter and also

considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective.

[2024:RJ-JD:9454] (4 of 5) [CRLA-823/2013]

There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the

statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove

its case for offence under Sections Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act

against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 beyond all reasonable

doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the said offence. The learned trial

court while convicting the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 has

given benefit of probation under Section 3 of PO Act after due

admonition. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it appears that

the learned trial court has not committed any error in giving such

benefit of probation to the accused-respondents No.2 to 5.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellants 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.

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.

[2024:RJ-JD:9454] (5 of 5) [CRLA-823/2013]

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

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

basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the