Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:2740) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2740]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 791/2006
Ram Kumar S/o Late Shri Moolaram, B/c Jaat, Aged 29 years,
R/o Ratadhundha, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Lichhmanram S/o Ratnaram, B/c Jaat,
3. Baburam @ Paburam S/o Ratnaram, B/c Jaat
4. Ramdev S/o Ratnaram, B/c Jaat
5. Gumanaram S/o Ratnaram, B/c Jaat
All R/o Rughnathpura, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
6. Shrawanram S/o Narainram, B/c Jaat, R/o Village Peelwa,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HM Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/01/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
19.09.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbatsar in Cr. Appeal No.31/2000 whereby the learned appellate
court acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 from offence
under Sections 147, 427, 447 IPC while quashing and setting
aside the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2000, passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, District
Nagaur in Regular Cr. Case No.232/1999.
[2025:RJ-JD:2740] (2 of 5) [CRLR-791/2006]
Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.1999, complainant
Moolaram filed an FIR at Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur to
the effect that the accused persons came to his agriculture field
and ruined the crops and also tried to assault his son Ramkumar.
On the said report, Police registered the case against the accused
respondents and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 6. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 6
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. Two witnesses were examined in defence
and got exhibited certain documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 02.11.2000 convicted and sentenced
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 for offence under Sections
147, 427, 447 IPC.
Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused-
respondents No.2 to 6 preferred an appeal before the learned
appellate court, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated
19.09.2005 and the learned appellate court acquitted the accused
respondents No.2 to 6 from the aforesaid offences. Hence this
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite
conviction by the learned trial court and despite there is ample
evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 regarding
[2025:RJ-JD:2740] (3 of 5) [CRLR-791/2006]
commission of offence, the learned appellate acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 for offence under Sections 147,
427, 447. The prosecution has proved its case that the accused-
respondents No.2 to 6 formed unlawful assembly and in pursuance
of common object to eject the complainant from the dispute land,
they used criminal force on complainant side. Thus, the learned
appellate court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 has
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the impugned appellate order is just and proper
and the same does not require any interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned appellate judgment, it appears
that the learned appellate court while passing the impugned
judgments have considered each and every aspect of the matter
and also considered the evidence produced before them 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 6 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate
court have rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6
from the aforesaid offences.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, 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 appellate judgment
[2025:RJ-JD:2740] (4 of 5) [CRLR-791/2006]
under challenge. The appellate judgment passed by the learned
appellate court is 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, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479,', 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:--
"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."
[2025:RJ-JD:2740] (5 of 5) [CRLR-791/2006]
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 Court below 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 appellate 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.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
