Revision petition against acquittal under IPC was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court gave cogent reasons for acquittal and no reasonable doubts remained to warrant interference.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was 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
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.761/2005 (Tara Chand Versus The State of Raj. & Ors.)
Date of Order :: 3rd January, 2014
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Sanjay Verma, counsel for petitioner(s) Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Abhi Goyal, counsel for the accused respondents
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the judgment dated 22.7.205 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No. 310/1991, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 of IPC.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
“On 14.6.1991 at about 7.00 AM,
the complainant-petitioner submitted a written report to the police station, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu against the accused respondents and other coaccused persons for the occurrence, alleged to have taken place on 13.6.1991 at about 11.45 AM. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 85/1991 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 323 IPC at Police Station, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
2
After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on 30.6.1991 for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 324, 325, 323 and 34 IPC against the accused respondents before the trial court. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, framed charges against accused persons. The accused respondents denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 22.7.2005 acquitting the accused respondents.”
Against the said judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the trial court, the present criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the trial court is not legally sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also the facts of the
3
present case, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the learned trial court has not properly considered the evidence on record, by which the prosecution well established the case against the accused respondents, therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2005 is liable to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 Tara Chand, PW-4 Chatru Ram and PW-6 Jasbir. They have categorically stated that the accused Shersingh, Sahiram, Vijaypal, Tarachand and Rajendra trespassed in their agricultural field, holding sticks, age, pharsi with the common object of giving beating to them and they were aggressor one, but the learned trial court ignored their evidence and acquitted the accused respondents, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, learned PP as appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the accused respondents have defended the impugned judgment passed by the court below and stated the same to be just and proper.
The Court attention was also drawn on
4
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors . Reported in (2006) 10 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
5
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."
Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the courts below, I find that the learned court below 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 court belo, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the criminal revision filed by the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
6
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal
PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused respondents under Sections 147, 447, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 IPC upon criminal revision filed by the complainant.
Whether the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts to warrant a finding of conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors.Referred¶19
Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC page 136 · Who else cites this
Tara Chand
The State of Rajasthan
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
