The High Court dismissed the criminal leave to appeal preferred by the complainant against an order of acquittal by the trial court. The court observed that discrepancies in the prosecution evidence justified the acquittal.
Leave to appeal dismissed; miscellaneous application 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 Leave To Appeal No. 111/2023
Smt. Nanchhi Devi Wife Of Shri Ratan Lal, Resident Of Village Tankarda, Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishan Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Judgment / Order
01/06/2023
(2 of 4) [CRLLA-111/2023]
Instant leave to appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 22.02.2023 in Criminal Case No.1189/2008 passed by learned ACJM, Chomu, District Jaipur whereby respondent nos.2 to 11 were acquitted from charge under Sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a total number of 8 witnesses and 6 documents were exhibited by the prosecution to prove the charges but learned trial court without considering the same have acquitted respondent nos.2 to 11 without any convincing reason. He further submitted that complainant and his witnesses had deposed in favour of prosecution and there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of witnesses of prosecution but learned trial court had failed to appreciate the fact and without considering the evidence had recorded the order of acquittal. He further submitted that appellant and her husband sustained injuries and same was proved beyond reasonable doubt but over looking the intensity of incident, learned trial court had arrived at a wrong conclusion. At last he submitted that there are sufficient and plausible grounds for consideration before this court.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
On the basis of a complaint filed before learned ACJM, Chomu on 17.06.2006 (Ex.P2), an FIR no.382/2006 Ex.P3 was registered at P.S. Chomu, District Jaipur but after investigation
(3 of 4) [CRLLA-111/2023]
police had filed a negative final report on the ground that the incident as reported was false. Learned trial court after protest and recording of statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. proceeded to take cognizance on 11.01.2010 under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 365 IPC but out of which cognizance under Section 365 IPC was set aside by the revisional court. Learned trial court proceeded for trial under Sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC and after recording the statements of witnesses produced by the prosecution and considering defence, learned trial court had acquitted respondents-accused.
Herein, this case complainant-appellant was examined as PW6 whereas her husband was examined as PW2. Learned trial court while referring the statement of PW2 had observed that complainant had filed a criminal complaint without knowledge and nod of PW2. Similarly, learned trial court had doubted the presence of PW4 Sushila and PW5 Phuli Devi on spot. Another fact which was brought on record was that a case was registered against Ratan Lal and after 4 days of registration of case, present matter was filed by his wife to counter the case registered against PW2 Ratan Lal.
When we consider the reasons as assigned in the order by learned trial court after evaluation of evidence then the fact of the matter is that after a delay of 4 days a criminal complain Ex.P2 was filed before learned ACJM which was sent under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of case. The record further indicated that FIR no.355/2006 under Section 436 IPC was registered against husband of complainant. As a witness PW2 Ratan Lal
(4 of 4) [CRLLA-111/2023]
during deposition admitted that on 11.06.2006 a case was registered against him and on 13.06.2006 no FIR was registered because his son was detained. He further admitted that he was released on bail by order Ex.D1. He further admitted that he was convicted vide order Ex.A2 and appeal is pending. A perusal of aforesaid vis-a-vis other witnesses clearly indicated that to counter a case registered against Ratan Lal present mater was filed. The evidence as led by prosecution clearly indicated that there were serious discrepancies and rightly noticed by learned trial court. No ground to entertain leave is available on record.
Having considered the entire material and evidence as led before the trial court, I do not find any reason for interference in the order of acquittal recorded by learned trial court, hence, the leave to appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.
Misc. application, if any, stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
Arun/17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted in the order of acquittal by the High Court in a criminal leave to appeal.
Whether the Leave to Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Smt. Nanchhi Devi Wife Of Shri Ratan Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
