Dismissed

Ram Narain and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2015CRLR/276/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's order acquitting respondents of death attempt charges. Upholding the acquittal based on reasonable doubt and settled principles, the court confirmed the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; judgment of acquittal by the trial court confirmed.

Ram Narain and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

O R D E R

¶3

S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PET. NO. 276/1996 (Ram Narayan and anr. Vs. State and ors.)

¶4

DATE OF ORDER :::::

¶5

27.08.2015

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr.N.A.Naqvi, Sr.Adv with Shakil Ahmed, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Rinesh Gupta, for respondents.

¶8

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.5.1996 passed by learned Spl. Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in sessions case no. 37/1995 whereby he has convicted the respondents under Sec.325/34 and 324/34 IPC but acquitted them from the charge of Sec.307 IPC.

¶9

Briefly stated facts of the case are that as per the complainant-petitioner Ram Narayan, PW-3, lodged a report on 15.8.1994 at 8.00 am to the effect that when he was talking with Jag Mohan infront of Phatak of Khaliyan, then suddenly both the accused respondents came there and caused injuries to Jag Mohan. Babulal gave one blow by Khutiya and Badrilal gave one blow by Kadidar Lakri. Jagmohan fell down unconsciously and then both of them ran away. The police on the basis of this report, registered the case at No.81/1994 at P.S. Siswali, Distt. Baran under

¶10

Sec.307/34 IPC. The police after investigation, submitted the challan against both the accused under Sec.307, 325, 324 and 323/34 IPC. The trial court framed charges against Babulal under Secs.307, 325, 324, 323/34 and in alternative under Secs.323, 307 and 324 IPC; and against Badari Lal, under Sec.307, 325, 324, 323/34 IPC and also under Sec.323 and 325 IPC. The respondents denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of respondents under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the respondent Babulal as indicated above but granted probation to the accused Badari Lal as indicated above vide judgment dated 24.5.1996. The trial court acquitted the respondents from the charge under Sec.307 IPC. Hence this revision petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of trial court is legally not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also the material available on record. It has erroneously acquitted the respondents the charge under Sec.307 IPC. The trial court while extending the benefit of probation to Badrilal, has not called the report from the Probation Officer and according to

¶12

theAct, the court is bound to call the report from the concerned Officer. It has also been contended that the trial court has not taken into consideration the medical evidence available on record. The trial court has not properly considered the relevant documents as also statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence impugned order dated 24.5.1996 be set aside.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that accused Babulal has already been given probation under Secs.4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and he has already completed the sentence, therefore, nothing survives in his appeal; whereas he along with Public Prosecutors have opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of complainant-petitioner and supported the impugned order passed by trial court dated 24.5.1996 and contended that the trial court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed.

¶14

The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

¶15

Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006

¶16

Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it

¶17

is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.”

¶18

Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents 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 the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

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 weightage 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, this Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal.

¶20

Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court dated 24.5.1996.

¶21

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

¶22

Sandeep/-49

¶23

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.

Ram Narain and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Narain and Ors. v. State and Ors.

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

Bannalal and Ors. Vs State

Vikram Vs State

Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Dr Rakesh Kumar Saxena Vs State Medical and Healthors

Babu Lal Vs State

Smt Rajni Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.