Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moda Ram vs State And Anr (2024:Rj-Jd:23792) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:23792]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2004
Moda Ram S/o Allu Khan, B/c Lohar Musalman, R/o Mata Magri
Jutha, Panchayat Samiti Raipur, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Banwari Lal S/o Sadhu Ram, By caste Brahman, R/o Surpura,
Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
24/05/2024
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
14.05.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Bar, District Pali, in Criminal Case No.203/2002, whereby the
learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from
the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2002 complainant Koju
Khan (brother of Moda Ram) lodged an FIR to the effect that he
alongwith his brother Moda Ram was sitting outside their house.
Moda Ram's son Ustad and daughter Sarifa were returning to their
house, then a truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-G-5495 driven
rashly and negligently hit Ustad, who then succumbed to the injuries.
The driver and cleaner of the truck fled away from spot. On the said
complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent
[2024:RJ-JD:23792] (2 of 5) [CRLR-538/2004]
No.2 and Police started investigation. After investigation, the
police filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2 for
offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Thereafter, the charges
of the case were framed against the accused-respondent No.2,
who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statements of accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 14.05.2004 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence,
this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned
trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of
the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. The
learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves
to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC.
No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2
despite service of the notice.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the
counsel for the petitioner-complainant.
[2024:RJ-JD:23792] (3 of 5) [CRLR-538/2004]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
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.
There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 279&
304-A IPC.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-
complainant 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
judgment under challenge. The learned trial court has rightly
acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence. The
order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned
order and the same does not warrant any interference from this
Court.
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",
[2024:RJ-JD:23792] (4 of 5) [CRLR-538/2004]
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/
revision 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/revision against acquittal
except that while dealing with an appeal/revision 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 petitioner 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 judgment under challenge.
[2024:RJ-JD:23792] (5 of 5) [CRLR-538/2004]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
153-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
