Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayanlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14314) on 17 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:14314]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2106/2024

Narayanlal S/o Ganesh Lal Bhat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Banakiya Kala, At Present Pratapnagar, Dist. Chittorgarh
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Abhishek Pratap Singh S/o Narendra Pal Singh, Aged
         About 40 Years, R/o House No. A-35, Gali No. 04,
         Pratapnagar, Dist. Chittorgarh
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     None present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

17/03/2025

No one appeared on behalf of appellant on 03.01.2025 and

the matter was posted in the month of March, 2025. Today, again

no one is present, even in the second round.

The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being

aggrieved by the judgment dt. 30.09.2024 passed by the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,

Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2018 whereby, the trial court

acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence under Section 323,

341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a

written report against the accused respondent no.2 stating therein

that on 04.02.2017 when the appellant was driving his bus, the

[2025:RJ-JD:14314] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-2106/2024]

respondent no.2 intercepted him and hurled caste abusive

language and also beaten him. Upon the said report, FIR No.

59/2017 was registered and the police started investigation. After

investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondent

no.2. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent

no.2 for offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)

(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution in support of its case examined seven

witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement

of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who stated

that the complainant has falsely implicated the respondent no.2.

He also exhibited certain documents in defence.

After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the

respondent no.2 from offence mentioned above vide judgment

dated 30.09.2024 as the prosecution failed to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt.

As per memo of appeal, the Court below without going

through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondent

no.2 from offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)

(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is mentioned that

the complainant has specifically stated that the respondent no.2

had hurled caste abusive language and beaten him. However, the

trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 on the basis of minor

contradictions in the statement of witnesses, granting him benefit

of doubt. The fact with regard to beating and abuses have been

stated by the complainant in his court statement and also by other

witnesses, therefore, adequate punishment should have been

[2025:RJ-JD:14314] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-2106/2024]

imposed upon the respondent no.2 but the court has acquitted the

respondent no.2 giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, the

impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be

punished for the alleged offence.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for

the appellant.

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the

material on record.

From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the

learned trial court, it appears that the court below came to the

conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused

respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and

Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond

reasonable doubt, as there are material contradictions, omissions

in the statement of witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the

findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is

no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court.

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",

[2025:RJ-JD:14314] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-2106/2024]

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."

Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'H.D. Sundara &

Ors Vs. State of Karnataka' (Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011)

decided 26.09.2023 held as under :-

"7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -

(a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

[2025:RJ-JD:14314] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-2106/2024]

(b) The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

(c) The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

(d) If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

(e) The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts.

The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was

[2025:RJ-JD:14314] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-2106/2024]

established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."

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.

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