The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of acquittal. The Court held that the appellate court's decision was free from perversity and followed Supreme Court precedents requiring cogent reasons to disturb acquittals.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the order of acquittal was left undisturbed.
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 of 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 355/2017
Mohammad Asif Son of Haji Mohammad Shaukat, by Caste Musalman, R/o House No.929, Mahawaton Ka Mohalla, Chokdi Topkhana Hajoori, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
__________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar For Respondents : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Usman Khan
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
12/01/2018
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 17.11.2016.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
(2 of 3)
Parties are stated to be closely related to each other. Petitioner and respondents no.2 & 3 are brothers. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that it was a case of version and cross-version. In the cross-version, petitioner side was acquitted in view of compromise effected between the parties.
In the present case, trial court had ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 143, 323, 457, 451 Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment/order dated 14.8.2012. Appellate Court ordered the acquittal of the accused. Dispute with regard to the partition of the property is pending between the parties.
A perusal of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court shows that the reasons given by the trial court while ordering the acquittal of the accused are sound reasons.
Hon'ble 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.
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:
“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
(3 of 3)
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 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”
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, no ground for
interference by this court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/64
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the trial court and countermand the order of revision petition
Whether there are compelling and substantial reasons to disturb the findings of acquittal based on perversity or misreading of evidence
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of GujaratReferred¶24
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraExplained¶25
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Asif
State of Rajasthan
Mohammad Raees
Mohammad Sabir
Mohammad Jakir
Mohammad Sadik
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
