Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Ram Chandra (2025:Rj-Jd:13378) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13378]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 8/2014
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Appellant
Versus
Ram Chandra S/o Hetram, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Muklava, P.S.
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shardul Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
10/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the
accused-respondent from offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A
of IPC vide judgment dated 29.08.2013 passed by learned RHJS
Court Officer, Village Court, Anupgarh, Sriganganagar, in Cr. Case
No.30/2010.
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2006, complainant
Lal Chand gave a parcha bayan to the Police, while being admitted
at the Government Hospital, Srivijaynagar to the effect that the he
was standing along with his sister in law- Saroj and nephew-
Pradeep and some other persons at Kupli bus-stand. Complainant
further stated that a bus being driven very recklessly, hit his sister
in law and nephew and the bus overturned, as a result of which,
his sister in law and nephew sustained serious injuries as well as
passengers sitting inside the bus also sustained injuries. Further,
complainant stated that while being taken to the Hospital, his
sister in law and nephew succumbed to the injuries. On the said
[2025:RJ-JD:13378] (2 of 4) [CRLA-8/2014]
report, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent
and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet
against the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279,
337 & 304A of IPC and cognizance was taken against the accused-
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 &
304A of IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The
accused-respondents denied the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statement of accused respondent were recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 29.08.2013 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submits
that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 279, 337 &
304A IPC. 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
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is just and proper
and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:13378] (3 of 4) [CRLA-8/2014]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial court.
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 beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent from offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :
2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:13378] (4 of 4) [CRLA-8/2014]
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
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 against acquittal except that while
dealing with an appeal 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 appellant 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
challenge.
Hence, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the
same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
134-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
