The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of four accused persons charged under Sections 304 and 201 IPC. The Court held that the acquittal order was based on a possible view of the evidence and found no compelling grounds for interference.
Narrative dismissed as no ground for interference was made out.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Criminal Revision No. 100/1987
Seva Ram Bhatia S/o Shri Chiman Lal Bhatia resident of Dabli Rathan, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Ganga Nagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Non-Petitioner
All by caste Bhatia, residents of House No. 436, Shastri Nagar, Dadabadi, Kota.
----Accused Non-Petitioners
For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Sharma. For Respondent No. : Mr. Javed Choudhary 1 For Respondents No. : Mr. Rinesh Gupta. 2 to 4
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
19/12/2019
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging judgment dated 23.01.1987 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, Respondent No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 304 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Shanta Bhatia was married to Suresh Chand on 19.04.1980. Sufficient dowry had been given by the complainant at the time of marriage of his
(2 of 4)
[CRLR-100/1987]
daughter. However, daughter of the complainant was being harassed by her in-laws family. Shanta Bhatia died on 16.04.1981 and was immediately cremated without informing the complainant party. Nobody was allowed to see the dead body of the deceased.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against Respondents No. 2 to 4. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.01.1987 ordered acquittal of Respondents No. 2 to 4. Hence, present revision petition by the petitioner/complainant.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, Shanta Bhatia had died on 16.04.1981. There is no post mortem examination report on record to establish the cause of death of the deceased. Complainant had approached the Magistrate on 04.05.1981 by filing a complaint. Thus, delay in lodging the complaint gains significance.
It has been noticed by the Trial Court that at the time of cremation ceremony, 70-80 persons were present. Death had occurred on 16.04.1981 at 8.00 P.M. and the cremation ceremony took place on the next day at 10.00 A.M. At the time of cremation ceremony, nobody had raised any objection. It has also been noticed by the Trial Court that the deceased was under treatment of Dr. R.C. Gupta, Dr. S.P. Singh Khanuja and Dr. Beena Khanuja. This leads to the inference that the deceased was suffering from illness and was under treatment.
(3 of 4)
[CRLR-100/1987]
It is settled preposition of law that if two views are
possible, then the view taken by the Trial Court ordering acquittal of the accused is liable to be accepted.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. 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 vs. 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 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
(4 of 4)
[CRLR-100/1987]
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”
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view.
Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made
out.
Dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's acquittal.
Whether the view taken by the Trial Court regarding the cause of death was a possible view.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of GujaratReferred¶30
Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
Mrinal Das & Others vs. The State of TripuraReferred¶31
Mrinal Das & Others vs. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Seva Ram Bhatia
State of Rajasthan
Suresh Chand
Laxmi Chand
Savitri Devi
Sabina
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sabina and Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Parties & counsel
