Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nasir @ Nar Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:43279) on 21 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:43279]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 839/2019
Nasir @ Nar Singh S/o Deena, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste
Mehrat, Resident Of Bhoja Thakur Ka Badiya, Ps Bhim, District
Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sarupariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/10/2024
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by
the accused-petitioner against the judgment dated 14.06.2019
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal
Appeal No.23/2016 whereby the learned Judge remanded the
matter back to the leaned trial Court with particular direction to
decide the matter afresh.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for the
disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner was tried
for committing an offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan
Excise Act. Vide order dated 12.02.2016, the learned Additional
[2024:RJ-JD:43279] (2 of 4) [CRLR-839/2019]
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem, District Rajsamand had
acquitted the petitioner from the charges with the specific finding
that there was serious contradiction and discrepancy in the
prosecution evidence, which has vitiated the recovery.
3. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone
through the orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the
appellate Court.
4. Against the order of acquittal, the State has preferred an
appeal which got registered as Criminal Appeal No.23/2016 and
the petitioner was summoned. The parties were heard and vide
order dated 14.06.2019, the appeal was allowed in part while
setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial
Court and at the same time, certain directions were issued for
remanding the matter back to the trial Court to register the case
again on its original number and then to re-examine P.W.10 Badri
Lal and tender some documents into evidence.
5. This Court has also pondered over the aspect as to whether
re-examination of P.W 10 Badri Lal and tendering of ration card
etc. would be sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the
accused and finds that it would be a futile exercise. The learned
trial Judge has given categoric finding on each and every aspect
of the recovery and observed that the prosecution had miserably
failed to prove the charges against the petitioner.
6. The Criminal Jurisprudence has a theory of innocence, as per
which, until the guilt is proved, the accused is presumed to be
innocent. The above presumption was existing in favour of the
[2024:RJ-JD:43279] (3 of 4) [CRLR-839/2019]
accused until the order of the trial Court is passed and after
passing the order by the Court of competent jurisdiction, whereby
he was acquitted; the already existing presumption of innocence
gets double strength. This Court is of the view that in an appeal
against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal should show
reluctance in interfering in it unless it is felt that the order under
assail is a product of total non-consideration of the material
available on record or it is observed that gross error of law has
been committed or it is found that total misappreciation of the
evidence is done. Unless the above situation arises, the appellate
Court should be slow in making interference in a well reasoned
order of acquittal. Even if, there are two views possible from the
evidence; the Criminal Court is expected to accept the view
favourable to the accused. The theory of proving the charges
beyond doubt never shifts unless specific statutory provision
enables to do so.
7. Thus, viewing from any angle, this Court finds that the
learned Sessions Judge has unnecessarily interfered in a well
considered order of acquittal and there was no need for remanding
the matter back for a further trial for which, this Court feels that
even the same task would not prove the case of the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal dated
14.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not
sustainable in eyes of law and thus, the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the instant revision petition succeeds and thus
allowed. The order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned
[2024:RJ-JD:43279] (4 of 4) [CRLR-839/2019]
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.23/2016 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 12.02.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem
passed in Criminal Regular Case No.188/2009 is affirmed. The
acquittal of the petitioner is further affirmed by this Court.
9. The stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
40-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
