Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Tulcharam vs Bhojaram And Ors on 20 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:26969]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 912/2004

Tulcharam son of Chhogaram, by caste Jat, resident of Mundsar,
Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. Bhojaram son of Kisturaram, caste Jat, age 52 years, resident
of    Mundsar,       police     station          Napasar,         district     Bikaner.


2. Bhagwanaram son of Bhanwarlal by caste Jat, age 29 years,
resident of Mundsar, police station Napasar, district Bikaner


3. Birbalram son of Bhojaram, caste Jat, age 21 years, resident
of     Mundsar,      police      station         Napasar,          district    Bikaner


4. Tulchharam son of Meharram, caste Jat, age 52 years,
resident of Mundsar, police station Napasar, district Bikaner


5. Hariram son of Bhavarlal, caste Jat, age 26 years, resident of
Mundsar,        police        station       Napasar,              district     Bikaner


6. Madanlal son of Bhavarlal, caste Jat, age 36 years, resident of
Mundsar,         police        station           Napasar            Lila,      Bikaner


7. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     None Present
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sharwan Singh, Dy.G.A.
                                 Mr. Pankaj Gupta



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order
ORDER RESERVED ON                         :                                 08.05.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                          :                              20.06.2025
BY THE COURT:-

1. The petitioner happens to be a complainant of a criminal

case, in which, after full fledged trial, the accused respondents

[2025:RJ-JD:26969] (2 of 5) [CRLR-912/2004]

were acquitted from the charges vide the judgment dated

20.08.2004. Aggrieved of which, the instant revision petition has

been preferred before this Court challenging the legality and

correctness of the aforesaid order.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have gone through the record of the case. Briefly stated the

facts of the case are that based on the report (Ex.-P/1) lodged at

the instance of the petitioner regarding an assault made on him,

the criminal machinery set into motion and FIR (Ex.-P/16) for the

offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC

got lodged. After usual investigation, the respondents were

arrested and then charge-sheeted for the abovementioned

offences. Charges were framed and the trial commenced where

nine witnesses were produced and reliance was placed upon 36

documents to substantiate the charge. Explanation was sought

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the accused wherein they

claimed innocence, however, reliance was placed on Ex.-D/1 to D/-

17 documents. Whereafter, the parties were heard and the learned

trial Court acquitted the accused respondents which is the subject

matter of the instant revision petition.

4. After having meticulously examined the record, this Court

feels that the evidence brought on record has been appreciated

correctly by the learned trial court and cogent reasons have been

assigned in Para No.12 of the judgment under challenge. For the

purpose of satisfaction, this Court have verified the facts

mentioned in the judgment from the record. Indeed the

genuineness and genesis of the incident has deliberately been

withheld. There is a direct conflict between the medical and ocular

[2025:RJ-JD:26969] (3 of 5) [CRLR-912/2004]

evidence. P.W.-1 (Tulcharam) made allegations of casting an injury

by accused Bhanwar Lal on his right shoulder using the sharp

edged weapon, however, injury report does not find mentioning of

it. Similar is the situation regarding injuries alleged to have been

caused by the accused Bhoja Ram since the part of body and

nature of injuries were definite. At one hand, the prosecution

witness emphatically asserted causing injuries by sharp edged

weapon but the same did not get corroboration from the medical

evidence and particularly, the reply given by Dr. OP Saini (P.W.-6)

and the evidence of Tulcharam (P.W-1), Bhanwar Lal (P.W.-2),

Magharam (P.W.-3), Sohan Lal (P.W.-4) and Hari Ram (P.W.-5) falls

within the category of completely unreliable witness. Each and

every aspect of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution

has been dealt with by the learned trial Court very finely and I see

no reason to interfere in it. In absence of compelling

circumstance, the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses not

getting corroboration from any independent source, including the

medical evidence. The presence of eye-witness P.W.-4 (Sohan Lal),

P.W-5 (Hari Ram) seems to be very doubtful. As per the statement

of P.W-9 (Dr. Hari Krishan Das Gupta), he found simple injuries on

victim and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly observed

failure of the prosecution in proving the case against the accused

respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

4.1 This Court is of the view that the Court of appeal or the

upper Court should be circumspect, slow or even show reluctance

in making interference of a judgment of acquittal unless it is

satisfied that the judgment is a product of total non-consideration

of the material on record or the acquittal is based on

[2025:RJ-JD:26969] (4 of 5) [CRLR-912/2004]

misappreciation of evidence or is passed against the settled

principles of law. This Court has taken guidance from the

judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in

(2024)3SCC544. The relevant part of the order is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the Accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

5. In view of the above, this Court, while while sitting in

revisional jurisdiction has not find any patent illegality or

incorrectness in the judgment. The instant revision petition does

[2025:RJ-JD:26969] (5 of 5) [CRLR-912/2004]

not have any force and, therefore, the same deserves to be

dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed as

having no force. The order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner is

affirmed.

7. The record be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 3-divya/-