Appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC 341, 323/34. High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the trial court's acquittal was justified based on contradictions in evidence and FIR delay. Appellant failed to show any error of law or fact warranting interference.
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:42922]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2313/2023
Surendra Singh S/o Shri Vag Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Alasan, P.s. Sayla Dist. Jalore
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/12/2023
The appellant complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case NO. 82/2023 whereby the accused respondents No. 2 & 3 have been acquitted from the offences under Section 341, 323/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant complainant filed a written report before the SHO, P.S. Sayla stating therein that on 25.07.2017, in the evening, his father and younger brother were at the field where a tree had fallen. They saw accused respondents cutting the tree by axe. On protesting, the
(2 of 7) [CRLAS-2313/2023]
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
accused respondents became annoyed and accused Khim Singh attacked his father with iron rod and then beaten him with fists and blows, causing injuries.
On this report a FIR No. 100/2017 was registered against the respondents for offence under Sections 447, 323 read with 34 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, challan was presented against the respondents No.2 & 3.
The trial Court framed charge against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. The accused respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twelve witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded who produced witness smt. Moriya Kanwar in defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents for the offences charged on the ground that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. It is argued that there were direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence which proved the guilt of the accused respondents. The evidence of appellant Surendra Singh,
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
[CRLAS-2313/2023]
(3 of 7)
Vag Singh and Devi Singh duly support the prosecution story. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondents on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR without considering the fact that due to heavy rain in the area, the complainant could not lodged the FIR. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against him.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis of material contradictions in the statement of the independent witnesses, cross-cases registered against complainant so also the delay in lodging the FIR. No plausible explanation has been given with regard to delay in lodging the complaint. The learned Trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused respondents had wrongly restrained the complainant party and caused injuries to them, more so when the investigating officer PW/12 Bhagwana Ram has categorically stated that he had investigated the cross case filed against Vag Singh by the respondents and it was found that in both the cases, Vag Singh was the aggressor party. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove offences under Section 341 & 323 IPC against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
[CRLAS-2313/2023]
(4 of 7)
and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“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.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--
“A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”
(5 of 7)
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
[CRLAS-2313/2023]
Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘H.D. Sundara & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka’ (Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011) decided 26.09.2023 held as under :-
“7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -
required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
(6 of 7)
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
[CRLAS-2313/2023]
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been
(7 of 7)
[2023:RJ-JD:42922]
[CRLAS-2313/2023]
fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-BJSH/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Whether the trial court's view that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt was a possible view.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in witness statements justify setting aside the acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & Others v. State of TripuraReferred¶33
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu DuttaReferred¶35
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
H.D. Sundara & Ors v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶40
H.D. Sundara & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka', Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Khim Singh
Ram Singh
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
