Dismissed

Polu Ram v. Heera Lal and Anor

Rajasthan HC10 May 2015CRLR/154/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the complainant against an appellate order acquitting the respondent of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was confirmed.

Polu Ram Vs Heera Lal and Anor — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.154/2002 (Polu Ram Versus Heera Lal & Anr.)

¶3

Date of Order :: 18^h May, 2015

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

Mr. Praveen Jain, counsel for complainantpetitioner Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Mahendra Kumar, for the accused respondents

¶6

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the Judgment/order dated 31.1.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk in Cr. Appeal No. 31/2001, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1; acquitted him for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 406/34 IPC and quashed and set-aside the judgment dated 11.4.2001 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Cr. Case No. 108/1995 convicting the respondent no.1 for the offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' SI; and for the offence under Section 406/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' SI.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶9

¶10

“A written report was submitted by the complainant at Police Station, Sadar Tonk against Heera Lal, father-in-law of Smt. Kesari; Lalaram, husband of Smt. Kesari and Smt. Mooli, mother-in-law of Smt. Kesari under Section 498A IPC. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 44/1995 for the offence under Section 498A IPC and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons. Lalaram, who is the husband of Smt. Kesari absconded, therefore, trial of Heera Lal and Smt. Mooli was separated. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 readwith Section 34 IPC. The accused persons denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution examined its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 11.4.2001 acquitting the accused person Smt. Mooli for the aforesaid offences, but convicted the

¶11

¶12

accused respondent no.1 for the offence under Section 498A/34 and 406/34 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. Against the said judgment passed by the trial court the accused respondent no.1 filed appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 31.1.2002 allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment of the trial court, acquitted the accused respondent no.1 from the alleged offences. Hence, this revision petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a perusal of the entire prosecution evidence clearly shows that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He has further contended that the learned appellate court has committed an error to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 11.4.2001 without any basis or cogent reason. He has further contended that in the present case, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against respondent no.1 by oral as well as documentary evidence and learned trial court rightly convicted the respondent no.1 for the above offences, but the learned appellate court without

¶14

¶15

considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution wrongly acquitted the respondent no.1 for the above offences, therefore, under these circumstances, the finding of the learned court below is perverse, illegal, and erroneous, thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

¶16

On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the accused respondent have defended the impugned judgment passed by the court below and stated the same to be just and proper.

¶17

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 SCC page 136, in which their Lordships of Supreme court observed in para no. 26 that:

¶18

"it is not well settled that if

¶19

two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.

¶20

It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the

¶21

¶22

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."

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶24

Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the court below, I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the proseuction proved against the accused

¶25

¶26

respondent.

¶27

Looking to the facts and

¶28

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 respondent for the offence for which he had been charged and the learned court below was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned court below, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

Accordingly, this criminal revision filed by the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.

¶30

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

¶31

¶32

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶33

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Polu Ram v. Heera Lal and Anor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polu Ram v. Heera Lal and Anor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Vs State

Siya Ram Vs Sammander

Antar Lal and Anr. Vs State

Bagru Vegetable Printing Worka Vs State and Anr.

Smt.Memuna Bewa Vs State and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.