State vs Mohd.Aslam @ Mishra ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 353 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 353 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mohd.Aslam @ Mishra ... on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:21722]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 314/2014

State of Rajasthan
                                                                           ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Mohd. Aslam @ Mishra S/o Nathu Khan, By caste Sipahi, R/o
Merta City, District Nagaur.
                                                                         ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
                                   Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
For Respondent(s)            :     None present.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

06/05/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State

under Section 378(iii)&(i) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the

accused-respondent from offence under Sections 323, 341, 324

and 307 IPC vide judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur, in Sessions Case

No.26/2010.

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2010 accused

respondent while stopping the complainant injured Mohd. Sakil

and started beating and caused injuries upon the complainant by

knife. On the said report, Police registered a case against the

accused-respondent and started investigation.

On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered and

Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed

challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court

framed charges against the respondent for offence under Sections

[2025:RJ-JD:21722] (2 of 4) [CRLA-314/2014]

341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed

trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as nine witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statements of accused respondents were recorded under section

313 Cr.P.C. In defence, only one witness was examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 14.08.2013 acquitted the accused-

respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal

appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the

learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the

accused-respondent from offence under Sections 323, 341, 324

and 307 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 323, 341, 324 and 307 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21722] (3 of 4) [CRLA-314/2014]

its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable

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

respondents from offences under Sections 323, 341, 324 & 307

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21722] (4 of 4) [CRLA-314/2014]

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-State has