High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal in a sexual offence case. Upholding the trial court's finding of benefit of doubt and citing settled law on non-interference, the Court held the acquittal was unanimous and maintained.
Appeal filed by the State dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.
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
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR
JUDGMENT
S. B. Cr i mi nal Appeal No. 518/ 2007 ( St at e of Raj ast han Ver sus Shakeel & Or s. )
PRESENT
HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr . R. R. Bai sl a, PP f or t he St at e of Raj ast han Mr . J. R. Tant i a, counsel f or t he accused r espondent ( s)
Thi s appeal has been f i l ed agai nst t he j udgment dat ed 30. 9. 2003 passed by Addl . Sessi ons Judge ( Fast Tr ack) No. 2, Jai pur Ci t y, Jai pur i n Sessi ons Case No. 32/ 2001, wher eby accused r espondent / s have been acqui t t ed f r om t he of f ence under Sect i ons 366, 366/ 120B, 376 and 368 I PC by gi vi ng t hem benef i t of doubt .
Br i ef f act s of t he case ar e t hat compl ai nant Shankar Lal submi t t ed a wr i t t en r epor t t o t he SHO, Pol i ce St at i on, Mansar ovar , Jai pur , ment i oni ng t her ei n t hat he l i ves i n Pl ot No. 30/ 4/ 10 i n Mansar ovar , Jai pur . Hi s si st er Jaya Kumar i al so l i ves wi t h hi m. Af t er school hour s, she used t o gi ve t ui t i ons. On 10. 5. 1996 she went t o Bhar at Shar ma' s pl ot no. 61/ 34 i n or der t o gi ve t ui t i on, but she di d not t ur n up. On t he basi s of sai d r epor t , FI R No. 211/ 1996 was l odged.
2
Ther eaf t er , on i nvest i gat i on, t he pol i ce f i l ed a chal l an bef or e t he Magi st r at e concer ned, who commi t t ed t he case t o t he cour t of Sessi ons. Ther eaf t er t he mat t er was sent t o Addl . Sessi ons Judge ( Fast Tr ack) No. 2, Jai pur Ci t y, Jai pur f or t r i al . Tr i al cour t f r amed char ges agai nst t he accused r espondent s, who deni ed f or t he same and cl ai med f or t r i al . The pr osecut i on pr oduced i t s wi t nesses and got exhi bi t ed some document s. Ther eaf t er t he st at ement of t he accused r espondent / s wer e r ecor ded under Sect i on 313 Cr PC. Af t er hear i ng bot h t he si des, t he l ear ned t r i al cour t acqui t t ed t he accused r espondent / s vi de hi s i mpugned j udgment dat ed 30. 9. 2003.
Agai nst t he sai d j udgment , t hi s appeal was pr ef er r ed.
Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant has cont ended t hat t he j udgment of t he t r i al cour t i s per ver se, i l l egal and cont r ar y t o l aw, hence t he same i s l i abl e t o be quashed and set - asi de. The t r i al cour t has er r ed i n not bel i evi ng on t he st at ement of pr osecut r i x Jaya, PW- 2. He has f ur t her cont ended t hat t r i al cour t acqui t t ed t he accused r espondent s on t he gr ound t hat t her e i s cont r adi ct i on i n bet ween t he st at ement s of pr osecut i on wi t nesses. Hence, t he j udgment of t he cour t bel ow be set - asi de.
3
appear i ng f or t he accused r espondent s no. 1 and 3 has cont ended t hat accused r espondent no. 2, who was t he mai n accused i n t hi s case has expi r ed. The t r i al cour t has r i ght l y acqui t t ed t he accused r espondent s and passed a det ai l ed j udgment af t er due consi der at i on of t he evi dence submi t t ed by bot h t he par t i es, hence no i nt er f er ence i s r equi r ed by t hi s Cour t i n t he j udgment passed by t he Cour t bel ow. He has f ur t her cont ended t hat t her e i s a cont r adi ct i on i n t he st at ement of t he pr osecut i on wi t nesses and omi ssi on al so. He has f ur t her cont ended t hat FI R was del ayed, but no expl anat i on was gi ven by t he pr osecut i on f or del ayi ng t he Fi r st I nf or mat i on Repor t . He has f ur t her dr awn t he at t ent i on of t hi s Cour t on par a no. 28 of t he j udgment of t he cour t bel ow, whi ch i s r epr oduced as under :
" पी. ड. 1 शंकर लाल इस र९करण का पिरवादी है| इसने इस र९करण की घटना िदनांक 10. 5. 96 की बताते हुऐ िरपोटर् र९दशर् पी- 1 िदनांक 16. 5. 96 को दजर् कराया जाना बताया है| इस सा्षी ने अपनी सम्पूणर् सा�य म� िवलम्ब से िरपोटर् दजर् कराने का कोई संतोषजंनक कारण नही बताया है| इस सा्षी ने अिभयु्व गण के िवरू� आरोिपत अपराधो बाबत कोई ठोस र९कार की सा�य भी नही दी है| िचिकत्सकीय सा�य म� भी पी. ड. 9 डाँ मािलनी शेखावत ने अिभयोक्र७ी को इंटरकोसर् का आिद होना तथा विजन नही होना बताते हुये इंटरकोसर् बाबत कोई िनष्कषर् �्व नही िकया है| इस र९कार िचिकत्सकीय सा�य से भी अिभयोजन कहानी की कोई ताईद नही होती है| ”
The cour t at t ent i on was dr awn on t he f ol l owi ng j udgment of t he Hon' bl e Supr eme Cour t : -
4
Umr ao Vs. St at e of Har ayana & Or s. SC 2006 Vol . 10 Page 136 i n whi ch t he Lor dshi ps of t he Supr eme Cour t has obser ved i n par a 26 t hat “ i t i s now wel l set t l ed t hat i f t wo vi ews ar e possi bl e, t he appel l at e cour t shoul d not i nt er f er e wi t h t he j udgment of acqui t t al passed by t he cour t bel ow. ”
Looki ng t o t he evi dence j ust di scussed above, i t can easi l y be sai d t hat t he pr osecut i on has not been abl e t o pr ove i t s case agai nst t he accused r espondent s and t he l ear ned Cour t bel ow was r i ght i n acqui t t i ng t he accused r espondent s. I have no r eason t o di ssent f r om t he f i ndi ng of acqui t t al r ecor ded by t he l ear ned Cour t bel ow as t he same appear s t o be r easonabl e and pl ausi bl e i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case.
I t may be st at ed t hat i n appeal agai nst acqui t t al t hough power s of t he Hi gh Cour t t o r eassess t he evi dence and t o r each i t s own concl usi ons ar e as ext ensi ve as i n an appeal agai nst an or der of convi ct i on, yet as a r ul e of pr udence, i t shoul d al ways gi ve pr oper wei ght age and consi der at i on t o t he vi ews of t he t r i al j udge as t o t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he wi t nesses; t he pr esumpt i on of i nnocence i n f avour of t he accused, r i ght of t he accused t o t he benef i t of any doubt and t hus, Hi gh Cour t shoul d not or di nar i l y di st ur b t he or der of acqui t t al .
5
I have hear d l ear ned PP as wel l as t he l ear ned counsel f or t he accused r espondent s and al so gone t hr ough t he r ecor d of t he case.
Havi ng gone t hr ough t he i mpugned j udgment passed by t he l ear ned cour t bel ow, I f i nd t hat t he l ear ned cour t bel ow has gi ven cogent r easons f or not f i ndi ng t he case of t he pr osecut i on pr oved agai nst t he accused r espondent / s. Ther ef or e, I do not want t o i nt er f er e wi t h t he i mpugned j udgment passed by t he l ear ned cour t bel ow and t he appeal f i l ed by t he St at e of Raj ast han i s l i abl e t o be di smi ssed.
Accor di ngl y, t he appeal f i l ed by t he St at e of Raj ast han f ai l s and t he same i s her eby di smi ssed, af t er conf i r mi ng t he j udgment of acqui t t al passed by t he cour t bel ow.
( Mahesh Chandr a Shar ma) , J.
DK
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 High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused respondents on the ground of inconsistency in prosecution witness testimony and delay in FIR registration.
Whether the trial court erred in not relying on the statement of prosecution witness PW-2.
Whether the acquittal of the accused respondents is liable to be quashed as the judgment is perverse and illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umr ao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136Explained¶19
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Shakeel & Ors.
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
Parties & counsel
