Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghisaram vs State And Anr (2024:Rj-Jd:25237) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:25237]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 216/2006
Ghisaram S/o Shri Guna Ji, B/c Meena, R/o Meno Ki Dhani, Dari,
P.S. Gudaendala, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Surja Ram S/o Shri Motaram, B/c Meena, R/o Dari, P.S.
Gudaendala, District Pali.
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Rathore
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Praveen Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/05/2024
1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, challenge has
been made to the judgment of acquittal dated 07.12.2005 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in
Sessions Case No.77/2005, whereby the accused respondent No.2
acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 325, 324 and 307
of IPC.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the material available on record of the case, this Court
feels that the learned Sessions Judge has very prudently
appreciated the evidence brought on record on behalf of the
prosecution and, thus, reached on the conclusion that the
prosecution was miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
[2024:RJ-JD:25237] (2 of 3) [CRLR-216/2006]
3. For the purpose of satisfaction so as to examine the
legality, this Court has also gone through statement of PW-2
Ghisaram and found that there are several discrepancies and even
contradictions in between the statements recorded during the trial
and during the investigation. The cause behind it has not been
explained. A serious discrepancy with regard to the part of the
body, where the injuries were allegedly inflicted by the accused,
has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. There seems to
be a direct conflict in between the medical and legal evidence. The
Exhibit-P/16 - Injury Report and statement of PW-10 Dr. J.N.
Arora revealing injuries on the different part of the body, whilst
contrary to that, PW-2 Ghisaram expressed the different part
where the injuries were caused by the accused. PW-8 Bhairaram,
PW-11 Hiraram and PW-13 Sohan Singh have turned hostile and
have not supported the story of the prosecution.
4. This Court is convinced that the learned Sessions Judge
has very aptly and prudently examined the material available on
record. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case every
shadow of reasonable doubt and whenever a serious doubt
emerges in the story of the prosecution, certainly the benefit of
which should be given to the accused. Thus, no error has been
committed by the learned Sessions Judge in passing the judgment
impugned. Otherwise also there is a presumption of innocence,
which was already existing in favour of the accused respondent
No.2, has further been strengthened by a judgment of acquittal
passed by the court of competent jurisdiction.
[2024:RJ-JD:25237] (3 of 3) [CRLR-216/2006]
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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 07.12.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case
No.77/2005 is affirmed.
8. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.37
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
