The single judge appellate bench dismissed the State's special criminal appeal against the acquittal of Ramgopal in a criminal attempt to murder case, holding that when two views are possible on the evidence, the order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with.
S.C. Criminal Appeal No. 353/1994 dismissed.
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
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 353/1994
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Appellant
Versus
Ramgopal S/o Nanegiram Dhakad, R/o Miyada, Baran
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, PP For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order RESERVED ON 10/05/2023 PRONOUNCED ON 03/07/2023
the accused as Ramgopal on the basis of his gestures and clothes. The accused was continuously assaulted the injured and after
(2 of 7) [CRLA-353/1994]
sometime when he left, the injured was taken to the hospital. On 28.09.92, at 9.40 a.m., parchabayan of the injured was recorded at the hospital in pursuance of which investigation was conducted and the police filed the charge-sheet against respondent-accused. The matter was committed and tried by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Baran and during trial charges under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 IPC were framed and in support of charge prosecution had examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents whereas accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he did not produced any evidence in defence. After hearing the parties concerned, the trial court acquitted accused-respondent from charge under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 of IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor while challenging the conclusion as drawn by learned Additional Sessions Judge would submitted that the FIR was specifically registered against the respondent and the fact from parchabayan to statement before the court were explained by injured but the trial court without considering aforesaid had drawn wrong conclusions to acquit respondentaccused. He would further referred the sequence of event to contend that ordinarily in rural area, when an incident took place in the wee hours or during midnight then quite difficult for injured to inform police immediately about the incident, therefore, the time as consumed in initiation of police proceeding was fully justified but learned trial court on technicalities acquitted the accused, which was itself a wrong conclusion. He would further submitted that in this case, the deposition of injured was further
[CRLA-353/1994]
(3 of 7)
justified by medical evidence but learned trial court failed to notice the fact that the injuries were not self inflicted and same were caused by respondent-accused. He would further submitted that there was enough evidence on record to conclude that respondent-accused was identified on the spot and also injuries were grievous and serious in nature caused on vital part of the body and were sufficient to cause for death in ordinary course of nature.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
[CRLA-353/1994]
(4 of 7)
the incident. This Mohal Lal was examined as PW5 before the trial court and when we perused the statement of PW5 then from the beginning till end in his examination-in-chief this injured had clearly indicated that he identified Ramgopal from the beginning and he asked reasons of assault from accused but Ramgopal told him that he would kill him. PW5 further stated that after assault Ramgopal ran away from the place though it was admitted during cross examination that the night was black/dark night and he was covered with quilt. The witness further admitted that when accused was asked then he reiterated to assault him. It was admitted that there was animosity between injured and him. No doubt about that on record evidence of PW4 Doctor N.K. Tiwari is available to prove injury report Ex.P5 and x-ray report Ex.P6. Besides above, no other witnesses were available to corroborate the story of prosecution though PW9 recorded the statement of injured Ex.P4 and also carried out investigation.
[CRLA-353/1994]
(5 of 7)
parchabayan was registered on the basis of suspicion and there was no other evidence except oral evidence of PW5 to connect respondent-accused with the alleged incident then obviously we have to be very careful, particularly when learned trial court acquitted respondent-accused. In this case recovery of weapon was effected but same was not exhibited or got examined by FSL and no report of FSL was produced by the prosecution. It appears that the name of respondent-accused was referred due to animosity and also on the basis of suspicion but the principle of law is that suspicion howsoever strong may be, cannot takes place of proof. Hence, in case of challenge of acquittal this court is duty bound consider entire material including attaining circumstances.
(6 of 7)
[CRLA-353/1994]
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
[CRLA-353/1994]
(7 of 7)
acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
“20. ...an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.”
The appeal against order of acquittal dated 24.09.1993 is hereby, dismissed.
Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
Arun/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order acquitting the accused in a case of criminal attempt to murder.
Whether the suspicion and animosity between parties suffice to prove guilt despite lack of corroborative evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa Vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶29
(2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶37
(2008) 10 SCC 450 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. NareshRelied on¶41
(2009) 9 SCC 368 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Ramgopal S/o Nanegiram Dhakad
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ashok Kumar Jain
Parties & counsel
