Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ranjeet Singh vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:24982) on 22 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:24982]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 373/2012

Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Tejram Ji, B/c Purohit, R/o Ramaniya, PS
Sivana, District Balotra.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Babulal S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
3. Chagnaram S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
4, Deviram S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
5. Radha Devi W/o Rughnath,
6. Suresh S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
7. Hemaram S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
8. Rugnathram S/o Shri Gunesha Ram,
All B/c Meghwal, R/o Ramaniya, PS Sivana, District Balotra.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
                                   Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
                                   Mr. Anirudh K. Choudhary
                                   Mr. Rakesh Matoria



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

22/05/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-

complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment

dated 18.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track), Balotra, HO Barmer, Camp Balotra in Sessions Case

No.87/2010, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the respondent

No.5 from offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149,

324/149, 308/149 IPC and other respondents from offences under

Sections 341, 308/149 IPC and while convicting the other

[2025:RJ-JD:24982] (2 of 5) [CRLA-373/2012]

respondents for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149,

325/149, extended them the benefit of probation under Section

4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2010,

complainant/appellant submitted a written report at Police Station

Siwana to the effect that the accused-respondents Nos.2 to 8

assaulted him with axe, iron rod and lathi. On the said report, FIR

was registered against the accused-respondents and after usual

investigation, the police filed challan against them. Thereafter, the

trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondents denied

the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as twenty witnesses and exhibited various documents in support

of its case. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondents were

recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were

examined and two documents were exhibited.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 18.02.2012 acquitted the accused-

respondents from some offences as aforesaid and also gave them

benefit of probation for the offences as mentioned above. Hence,

this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted

that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents

regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court did not

consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right

perspective and acquitted them from the aforesaid. The learned

trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-

respondents for the aforesaid offences and in giving them the

[2025:RJ-JD:24982] (3 of 5) [CRLA-373/2012]

benefit of probation for the offences under which they have been

convicted. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed

and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been

convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer

made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the

learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents

after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not

warrant any 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-respondents beyond all reasonable

doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondents from the offences as aforesaid and rightly given the

benefit of probation to the accused-respondents for the offences

under which they have been convicted.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:24982] (4 of 5) [CRLA-373/2012]

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

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

[2025:RJ-JD:24982] (5 of 5) [CRLA-373/2012]

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