The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against the acquittal of two accused persons. Relying on the victims' denial that injuries were caused by the accused, the bench upheld the trial court's judgment holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal appeal dismissed; record sent back to court below.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:41797]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 523/2007
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Both sons of Harnam Singh, B/c Raisikh, R/o Fatehpur, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Bhadu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.04.2006, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh in Regular Cr. Case No.472/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under Sections 452, 323, 384 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2003, complainant Madan Singh submitted a report before Police Station Sangariya inter-alia stating therein that he is doing the job of Munim at NEW Bricks Company, Fatehpur. Yesterday, when the complainant was sitting in his office, both the accused-respondents along with other other persons came and threatened the complainant to close the Bhatta. It was further alleged that today also accused Jela Singh came in a drunken condition and again threatened the
[2023:RJ-JD:41797]
[CRLA-523/2007]
(2 of 3)
complainant. On this report, Police registered the case and started investigation.
After completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused persons for offence under Sections 323, 452, 384 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused persons, which they denied and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accusedpersons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, one witness was examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 26.04.2006 acquitted the accusedrespondents from the offences as mentioned earlier.
Hence, the State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents from the offences. Counsel submits that from the evidence available on record, a clear cut case is made out against the accusedrespondents. But the learned trial court without considering the evidence in a proper manner acquitted the respondents for the aforesaid offences, therefore the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of
[2023:RJ-JD:41797]
[CRLA-523/2007]
(3 of 3)
the matter while passing the order of acquittal. The learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interfere from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.
In this case, PW-1 Bhupendra has specifically deposed in this statement that no one had caused injury to him. PW-5 Moolchand also denied the fact of causing injury to the injured by the accused-respondents. Since, the injured himself has denied the fact of causing injury to him by any one, thus the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under Sectinos 452, 323, 384 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interfere from this Court.
The impugned judgment is perfectly justified and the same does not suffer from any perversity and infirmity.
Hence, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
46-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 452, 323, and 384 IPC given the victims' denial of injury.
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal is justified in the facts and circumstances.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Mejar Singh
Jela Singh @ Jernel Singh
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
