Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Ramchandra (2024:Rj-Jd:24843) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:24843]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 981/2005
Union of India through Supdt. Of Post Office, Bhilwara. Dn.
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ramchandra S/o Shri Gopi Lal Dhadhich, R/o Bemali Police
Station, Kareda, District Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Raika
for Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/05/2024
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition,
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 08.09.2004
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the
appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.98/2004, whereby accused
respondent was acquitted from the charges for the offences under
Sections 409 and 467 of IPC.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts given rise to the
instant revision petition are that the accused respondent was
prosecuted for committing offences under Sections 409 and 467 of
IPC and vide judgment dated 20.08.1996, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara convicted him and sentenced to
[2024:RJ-JD:24843] (2 of 4) [CRLR-981/2005]
suffer imprisonment. The accused respondent preferred an appeal,
challenging the judgment of conviction, which came to be allowed
vide impugned judgment dated 08.09.2004.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4. After minutely going through the judgments passed by the
court of first instance as well as the court of appeal, this Court
feels that a prudent appreciation of the evidence has been made
by the court of appeal and in fact no error has been committed in
allowing the appeal of the accused respondent and acquitting him
from the charges.
5. A perusal further revealing that neither PW-12 Hari Das
Vaishnav was a handwriting expert nor the disputed signatures
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of
the disputed signatures with the admitted material by a
handwriting expert.
6. This Court concurs with the observations of the learned
appellate court that simply on the basis of the testimony of PW-12
Hari Das Vaishnav, it cannot be proved that the disputed
signatures were of the accused respondent. In absence of a report
of a competent handwriting expert, no finding can be given with
regard to genuineness of the signatures. Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.
does not cover the report of a handwriting expert and, therefore,
even if a report of handwriting expert is there, it is not admissible
in evidence automatically.
7. A close scrutiny revealing that there is no concrete or
conclusive evidence with regard to entrustment of the property to
[2024:RJ-JD:24843] (3 of 4) [CRLR-981/2005]
the accused respondent, which either he misappropriated;
converted it for his own use or he refused to give back the
property to its true owner. Entrustment of the property is an
essential ingredient to convict a person for offence under Section
409 of IPC. The findings reached by the learned appellate court
are based on the settled principle of law, which in my opinion does
not require interference. Otherwise also there is a presumption of
innocence, which was already existing in favour of the accused
respondent, has further been strengthened by a judgment of
acquittal passed by the court of competent jurisdiction.
8. In such cases, unless it is shown that the judgment of
acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of material
available on record or unless it is shown that the findings are
based on misappreciation of the evidence or the same is passed
contrary to law; the Upper Court should not interfere; even if two
views are possible, the view favourable to the accused ought to
have been accepted.
9. Reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 12.02.2024
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa &
Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162 OF
2011).
10. In view of the above, there is no force in the instant
criminal revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The
judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2004 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in
Criminal Appeal No.98/2004 is affirmed.
[2024:RJ-JD:24843] (4 of 4) [CRLR-981/2005]
11. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
