Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Baldev Singh vs Tersem Singh And Ors ... on 26 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:16067]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 51/2005

Baldev Singh S/o Shri Achhar Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Talwada
Zeel, PS Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. Tersem Singh S/o Niranjan Singh
2. Amar Singh S/o Niranjan Singh
Both B/c Seni, R/o Talwara Zeel, PS Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
3. The State of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Manish Dadhich
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
                                  Mr. OP Choudhary



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

26/03/2025

Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the

judgment dated 23.09.2004, passed by learned District & Sessions

Judge, Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal No.15/2004 whereby the

learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the

respondent Nos.1 & 2 and acquitted the respondent No.1 from

offence under Sections 323/34 & 326 IPC and while maintaining

the conviction of respondent Nos.1 & 2 for offence under Section

324 IPC & Section 323 IPC respectively, set aside their sentence

and instead imposed fine upon them, while modifying the

judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2004, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi in Cr. Case No.49/1999.

[2025:RJ-JD:16067] (2 of 5) [CRLR-51/2005]

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant

filed a complaint before the Police Station Tibbi to the effect that

the accused-respondents No.1 & 2 assaulted him with an iron rod

and lathi. On the said report, Police registered an FIR and started

investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan

against the accused-respondents No.1 & 2. Thereafter, the trial

court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.1 &

2. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten

witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents

No.1 & 2 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two

witnesses were examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 07.01.2004 convicted and sentenced

the accused-respondents No.1 & 2 for offence under Sections 323,

323/34, 324, 326 IPC.

Against their conviction, the accused-respondents No.1 & 2

preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which

came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 23.09.2004 and

the appellate court modified the judgment of conviction of the trial

court and acquitted the respondent No.1 from offence under

Sections 323/34 & 326 IPC and while maintaining the conviction of

respondent Nos.1 & 2 for offence under Section 324 IPC & Section

323 IPC respectively, set aside their sentence and instead imposed

fine upon them. Hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite

the clear cut findings of conviction of the trial court, the learned

[2025:RJ-JD:16067] (3 of 5) [CRLR-51/2005]

appellate court acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from

offence under Sections 323/34 & 326 IPC and set aside the

sentence awarded to the accused-respondents No.1 & 2 for

offence under Sections 324 & 323 IPC respectively. Counsel

submits that there is ample evidence against the accused-

respondents No.1 & 2 regarding commission of offence but the

learned appellate court did not consider the same in right

perspective. The learned appellate court has committed grave

error in passing the impugned judgment. Thus, the impugned

appellate judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the

judgment of conviction passed by the trial court deserves to be

upheld.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

judgments of the courts below as well as considered the material

available on record.

On perusal of the impugned appellate judgment, it appears

that the learned appellate court while passing the impugned

judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and

also considered the finding of the trial court. There are major

contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the

witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the

accused-respondent No.1 for offence under Sections 323/34 & 326

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate

court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from the

said offences and also rightly set aside the sentence awarded to

the accused-respondents No.1 & 2 for offence under Sections 324

& 323 IPC respectively.

[2025:RJ-JD:16067] (4 of 5) [CRLR-51/2005]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:16067] (5 of 5) [CRLR-51/2005]

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