The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in an arms possession case. The Court held that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and found no grounds to disturb the impugned order.
Acquittal of accused respondents confirmed; appeal dismissed by the High Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
SB Criminal Appeal No. 278/1990 (State of Rajasthan Versus Shri Intjaar & Ors.)
:: Date of Judgment 9th May, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Piyush Kumar, P.P. for the State Mr. R.K. Mathur Sr. Counsel with Mr. Aditya Mathur, counsel for the accused respondents
REPORTABLE:
This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 31.5.1989 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 23/1988, whereby acused respondents Intjaar, Dal Chand, Chhotey Khan, Bhure Khan, Akhatar, Bhola Ram, Ram Vakeel, Rajendra Kumar and Krishan Kumar were acquitted frrom the offence under Section 399 and 402 of IPC and also for the offence under Section 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
"On 28.4.1988 at about 5.15 AM, an FIR was chalked out by the SHO, Sahajanpur, Alwar that near the Ashram of Baba Gyani Nath at village Neemrana, some objectionable arms were recovered and the accused respondents were in possession of these arms. They were arrested at about 4.30 AM. After investigation, the case was
2
challaned before the Court of learned Magistrate. Thereafter case was committed to the Sessions Judge . The learned trial court, after recording the statements and hearing the arguments of both the sides, acquitted the accused respondents from the offences, charged against them.
Against the said judgment, this appeal was preferred.
Learned PP appearing for the State has contneded that the accused respondents have wrongly been acquitted by the court below and there is a clear evidence against the accused respondents. He has further contended that Station House Officer recovered the arms from the accused resondents and he has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the witnesses, produced by the prosecution. He has prayed that the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan be allowed and the judgment of the court below be set-aside.
On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Mathur, appearing for the accused respondents has contended that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents and passed a detailed judgment after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties. He has further contended that one of the accused respondent Rajendra Kumar has died and the
3
incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.4.1988 i.e. about 25 years ago.
I have heard learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondents and also gone through the record of the case.
Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 31.5.1989 passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the proseuction proved against the accused respondents.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence for which they had been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents.
The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in (2006) 10
4
SCC page 136, in which their Lordships of Supreme court observed in para no. 26 that "it is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below."
It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The accused respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.
Dk
5
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal
PA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused when the evidence does not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the High Court is obliged to set aside a trial court acquittal despite the prosecution's contention of clear evidence.
Whether the principles laid down in Umrao regarding review of acquittal apply to the present appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors.Explained¶21
(2006) 10 SCC 509 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Intjaar
Dal Chand
Chhotey Khan
Bhure Khan
Akhatar
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
