Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs State And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:24735) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24735]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 620/2005
Madan Lal S/o Shri Pancha Ram, B/c Jat, Aged 46 years, R/o
Village Kankarai, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Shiv Narayan S/o Shri Jheena Ram,
3. Kailash @ Pappu Ram S/o Shri Jheena Ram,
4. Shri Jheena Ram S/o Shri Dayal Ram
All B/c Jat, R/o Village Kankarai, Tehsil and District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Ms. Kamla Goswami
Mr. Shailendra Gwala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/05/2024
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner-complainant under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. R/w Section
11(4) of Probation of Offenders Act against the judgment dated
01.06.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.16/2005, whereby the learned
judge acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from offence
under Sections 308/34, 325, 324, 323 IPC and while convicting
them for offences under Sections 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341
IPC, extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:24735] (2 of 5) [CRLR-620/2005]
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2004, petitioner
-complainant Madan Lal gave report before Police Station
Bhawanda to the effect that when Smt. Jani, Karma Ram, Smt.
Santosh, Arjun Ram & Baldev Ram were returning to their home
from the field, at that time accused persons came with common
intention on a tractor and started beating the aforesaid persons.
In the incident, the aforesaid persons received several injuries.
On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-
respondents No.2 to 4 and started investigation.
After investigation, the police filed challan against the
accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter, the charges of the
case were framed for offences under Sections 341, 308/34,
325/34, 324/34, 323/34 IPC. The accused-respondents No.2 to 4
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statements of accused-respondents No.2 to 4 were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.06.2005 acquitted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 4 from offence under Section 308/34, 325,
324, 323 IPC but convicted them for offences under Sections
325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC and extended the benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the
[2024:RJ-JD:24735] (3 of 5) [CRLR-620/2005]
learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other
aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections
308/34, 325, 324, 323 IPC. The learned trial court has committed
grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not award
any sentence to accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under
Sections 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC and instead extended
them the benefit of Section 4 of PF Act. Thus, the impugned
judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for aforesaid offences.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4
submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and
reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from
this Court.
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 Nos.2 to 4 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections
[2024:RJ-JD:24735] (4 of 5) [CRLR-620/2005]
308/34, 325, 324, 323 IPC and has also rightly given benefit of
Section 4 of PF Act for the offences under Sections 325/34,
324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners-
complainant 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. The learned trial court has rightly
acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the offences
and also rightly given the benefit of Probation. 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",
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:--
[2024:RJ-JD:24735] (5 of 5) [CRLR-620/2005]
"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.
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
20-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
