Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Ram vs Goma Ram And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:12412) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12412]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2006
Prabhu Ram S/o Poosa Ram, Age 45 years, B/c Jat, R/o Rasal,
Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Goma Ram S/o Bhinwa Ram,
2. Bhoma Ram S/o Goma Ram
3. Nanu Ram S/o Goma Ram
4. Santosh W/o Nanu Ram
5. Narayani W/o Bhoma Ram
6. Magnudi W/o Goma Ram
All B/c Jat & R/o Nimod, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur
7. State of Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Charan
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Shailendra Gwala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397(i) Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment
dated 24.10.2005, passed by learned Additional Chief judicial
Magistrate, Didwana in Cr. Case No.128/2003, whereby the
learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6
from offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 04.06.2003, the petitioner/
complainant gave a written report at Police Station to the effect
that the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 assaulted him with
lathies. On the basis of the said report, Police registered a case
[2025:RJ-JD:12412] (2 of 5) [CRLR-4/2006]
against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed the challan.
Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-
respondent Nos.1 to 6 and framed charges against them for
offence under Sections 147, 341, 323/34 IPC. The accused-
respondent Nos.1 to 6 denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 24.10.2005 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections 147, 341,
323/34 IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of
accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections 147,
341, 323/34 IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence
against them for commission of the alleged offence. While passing
the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered
the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right
perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 147, 341, 323/34 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:12412] (3 of 5) [CRLR-4/2006]
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 6
after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on
record. The judgment of the trial court is just and proper and
warrants no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before it 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.1 to 6 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 6 from offence under Sections
147, 341, 323/34 IPC.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:12412] (4 of 5) [CRLR-4/2006]
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."
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 trial Court 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.
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 judgment under
[2025:RJ-JD:12412] (5 of 5) [CRLR-4/2006]
challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
14-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
