State vs Mool Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:24431)
2025 Latest Caselaw 9905 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9905 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mool Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:24431) on 20 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:24431]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 95/1996

State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Mool Singh S/o Sumer Singh, By caste Rajput, R/o Thawla, P.S.
Ahor, District Jalore
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Bajrang Singh



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

20/05/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State

under Section 378(4) & (1) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the

accused-respondent from offences under Sections 307 IPC and

Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act vide

judgment dated 19.10.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/

ST (POA) Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No.15/1992.

Brief facts of the case are that the injured Pukhraj gave

statement to SHO Police Station Ahore on 11.07.1992 to the effect

that accused respondent Mool Singh shot on the complainant-

injured and he received injuries on the right leg thigh. On the said

complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and

after usual investigation, the police filed challan against him.

Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-

respondent and framed the charge for offence under Sections 307

[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (2 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]

IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. The

accused-respondent denied the charge and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as sixteen witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and certain

documents were exhibited.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 19.10.1995 acquitted the accused-

respondent from offence under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v)

of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. Hence, this criminal

appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that

there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent 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 the accused-respondent from offence

under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section

27 of Arms Act. The learned trial court has committed grave error

in acquitting the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned

judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-

respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for

aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer

made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the

learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent

after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal

[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (3 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]

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-respondent beyond all reasonable

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

respondent from offence under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of

SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State has

failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which

interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under

challenge.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (4 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]

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

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

to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which