Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Jeevandas

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2017CRLR/90/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan Revision Bench dismissed the State's criminal revision petition challenging the Appellate Court's order of acquittal in a wildlife protection case, finding no grounds for interference as the acquittal order was reasoned and no perversity was shown.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition filed by the State was dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court was upheld.

State of Rajasthan Vs Jeevandas — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 90/2015.

¶4

State of Rajasthan Through the Reginal Forest, Officer, Akbarpur, Distt. Alwar (raj.)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jeevandas S/o Shri Shyochand Deshwali Bawariya, R/o Namunda, Police Station Samal Khan, Panipat (harayana)

¶7

For Petitioner-State : Shri Navneet Singh

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

7/12/2017

¶11

Respondent had faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 9/51, 39/51, 27/51, 31/51, 44/51, 48-A/51 and 49-B/51 of Indian Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Trial Court ordered the conviction and sentence of the respondent vide judgment/order dated 9.1.2012 with regard to the charges framed against the respondent. Appellate Court vide order dated 11.12.2013 ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present petition by the State.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶13

Learned Appellate Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent, has taken into consideration the fact that respondent could not be convicted on the basis of confession made by his co-accused. Although, hooks etc. were recovered from the respondent during investigation and a memo in this regard was also prepared but the

¶14

recovered articles were not produced before the trial court during trial nor the memo prepared in this regard was proved on record. Reasons given by the Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, are sound reasons.

¶15

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

¶16

Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

¶17

“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved

¶18

guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed”

¶19

No ground for interference by this court is made

out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA)J.

Mrg./46

State of Rajasthan v. Jeevandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Jeevandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajant Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Vimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Radhika Devani @ Devi Meghani Vs Kanhaiyalal Devani @ Kannu Devani @ Kara

Vijaypal Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Punit @ Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan through P P