Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moola Ram vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:24343) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:24343]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 614/2007
Moola Ram S/o Bharu Ram Aged 72 years, R/o Village Ratheel,
Police Station Jaswantgarh District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Buxa Ram
3. Jetha Ram
4. Ram Niwas
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 All son of Asu Ram, R/o Village Ratheel,
Police Station Jaswantgarh District Nagaur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia
Mr.Madan Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shravan Singh Rathore Dy.G.A
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
09/05/2025
1. The present revision petition filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2007 passed the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judicial Magistarte Ist Class, Ladnu in
Criminal Case No.184/2004 whereby the learned Judge acquitted
the accused respondents from the charges of Sections 447, 323,
325, 336, and 34 of the IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.
2. The petitioner, who is the victim in the case, has expressed
his grievance on the acquittal of the accused respondents after a
rigorous trial. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was
subjected to beating by the respondents, and that stones were
pelted as a result of which he, along with Rekharam, Ram
[2025:RJ-JD:24343] (2 of 4) [CRLR-614/2007]
Swaroop, and Ganesha Singh, sustained injuries. All the witnesses
were meticulously examined by the learned Trial Court, and the
contradictions and discrepancies in their statements were critically
analyzed. The learned Trial Court took note of the admission made
by PW-7 Kamal regarding the attribution of injuries by specific
accused persons, which could not be clarified further. This gave
rise to a reasonable suspicion in the prosecution story.
2.1. Similar contradictions were noted in the statements of PW9
Anoop Singh and PW-10 Ganesh Ram and PW-11 Bhanwar Lal.
The learned Trial Court observed that although injured Rekharam
alleged that injuries were caused using axe , no such
corresponding injury was noted in the medical report. The
prosecution witnesses were also confronted with their previous
statements marked as Exhibits D-1, D-2, and D-4, and
discrepancies were duly noticed. Based upon the uncertainty and
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents.
3. 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24343] (3 of 4) [CRLR-614/2007]
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:24343] (4 of 4) [CRLR-614/2007]
(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.
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.
4. Accordingly, there is no force in the Criminal Revision, the
same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of
acquittal 09.05.2007 passed the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) &
Judicial Magistarte Ist Class, Ladnu in Criminal Case No.184/2004
is affirmed.
5. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
6. Let the record be sent back to the trial Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
10-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
