Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Krishan Ram And Anr. ... on 25 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:16203]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 202/2013

State Of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. Krishan Ram         S/o Shiv Dutt Ram, B/c Zuiriya R/o Chak 53
LNP, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, Reader (UDC)
Court of CJM, Hanumangarh
2. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Prabhati Lal B/c Sharma R/o Jahanpur,
PS Halena, District Bharatpur Class IV Employee Court of CJM,
Hanumangarh
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar, AAG
                                   Mr. Yogesh Charan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. S.K. Verma



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

25/03/2025

1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal

against the judgment dated 11.5.2012 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Bikaner in

Sessions Case No.46/2006, whereby the accused respondents

were acquitted from the charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d)

and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1998, r.w.

Section 120B of the IPC.

2. At the outset, it would be apt to mention that the principal

accused Krishna Lal, who is Respondent No.1 here in this appeal

has passed away as stated by the counsel for the appellant and

the respondents. In view of above, the appeal against respondent

No.1 stands abated.

[2025:RJ-JD:16203] (2 of 5) [CRLA-202/2013]

3. So far as respondent No.2 Manohar Lal is concerned, he was

a Class IV employee in the Court of CJM, Hanumangarh at the

relevant point of time. On 14.07.2004, the complainant Ramesh

Kumar submitted a complaint Ex.P/11 to the officers of ACB,

making allegations of demand of bribe by Respondent No.1

Krishnalal, who was working as the reader in the Court of CJM,

Hanumangarh. As per him, deceased Krishan Ram made a

demand of Rs.1000/- from him, out of which Rs.250 had been

paid and the remainder Rs.750 was to be paid. The trap team

proceeded at the place of incident where the complainant

informed the team that the deceased respondent No.1 directed

him to hand over amount to the peon who is the respondent No.2

here. The amount was not recovered from any of the respondent,

rather it was lying underneath a Godrej Almirah in the office of the

CJM. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed. The

trial court framed charges and proceeded in the matter. As many

as 9 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were tendered

into evidence to substantiate the charge. The learned trial Court

heard the counsel for the parties and acquitted the accused

respondents from the charges.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through

the record and niceties of the case. My considerations are that

admittedly PW5, Ramesh Kumar had no grievance with respondent

No. 2, Manohar Lal. There was no transaction in between these

two. There was no allegation of decoy against respondent No.2

Manohar Lal regarding demand of money or acceptance. Factually,

the amount was recovered underneath an almirah in the office of

CJM. Not an iota of evidence has been brought on record to

[2025:RJ-JD:16203] (3 of 5) [CRLA-202/2013]

presume that the accused Manohar Lal was knowing the fact of

alleged demand of bribe even if it is presumed that he was agreed

to receive the amount from PW5, Ramesh Kumar as directed by

him by accused Krishna Ram. There is no material to presume

that he received the amount owing it to be a bribe amount. The

learned trial Court has given several cogent reasons based on

which he passed the judgment of acquittal. The fact emerging

from the record that even the decoy did not allege throwing of the

amount by the accused under a Godrej Almirah. Not a single

member of trap party witnessed handing over of the amount to

him. Most interestingly, star witness PW5, Ramesh Kumar, has

turned hostile and did not support the story set out in the

chargesheet. In his own oath statement, he even denied paying

any amount to the accused. In express terms, he denied demand

of money. The learned trial Court has considered the aspect that

no evidence was produced to say that for what purpose the

remaining Rs.750/- was to be paid to the reader, Krishna Ram.

Several discrepancies have been noticed by the learned trial

Court, based on which he was of the opinion that the prosecution

miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and

after making re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court concurs

with his opinion.

5. It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of

innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further

fortification after his acquittal by a reasoned judgment of a Court

of competent jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and

should show reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned

judgment of acquittal. It should be kept in mind that until and

[2025:RJ-JD:16203] (4 of 5) [CRLA-202/2013]

unless it is observed that the judgment of acquittal is a product of

total non-consideration of the material brought on record or it is

against any provision of law or is concluded upon misappreciation

of evidence; the appellate Court should not interfere in the finding

reached by the trial Court. If after re-appreciation of evidence, a

stage comes where two views seem possible still the Court should

tend to accept the view favourable to the accused. Recently

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the matter of

Mallappa & Ors.Versus State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal

NO. 1162/2011 decided on 12.02.2024) had an occasion to

expound common principles in respect of the issue involved in like

cases while entertaining an appeal against acquittal; the relevant

Para No.36 is reproduced as under :-

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;

[2025:RJ-JD:16203] (5 of 5) [CRLA-202/2013]

(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.

6. In view of the above and upon scrutiny of the record of the

case, I see no reason to disturb the finding of acquittal arrived at

by the learned trial Judge after anxious consideration of the

material on record.

7. Accordingly, there is no force in the Criminal Appeal, the

same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of

acquittal judgment dated 11.05.2012 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Bikaner in

Sessions Case No.46/2006 is affirmed. The accused need not to

surrender or appear before this Court if any process has been

issued then the same be withdrawn immediately.

8. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.