In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 610/2022, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioner's bail plea challenging the acquittal of the respondents in an acid attack case.
Petition is dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
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:42211]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 610/2022
Nenuram S/o Sh. Khuma Ram, Aged About 73 Years, B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Sela Guda, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
PradeepShah |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Mukesh Trivedi, PP |
| Mr. | Ashok Upadhyaya |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
05/12/2023
The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Appeal No. 80/2017 (CIS No. 83/2017) whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Amet, District Rajsamand, whereby, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents for offence under Section 324 & 326 IPC.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written report to the effect that on 02.11.2009 in the midnight, when he was sitting in his shop situated outside his house, at that
[2023:RJ-JD:42211]
[CRLR-610/2022]
(2 of 5)
time, an unknown person came to his door and threw acid at him due to which he sustained injuries.
On this report, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 324, 326 IPC and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the respondent. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent for offence under Section 324, 326 IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case examined sixteen witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, who produced two witnesses in his defence.
After conclusion of trial, the court of Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent from offence under Sections 324, 326 IPC vide judgment dated 18.07.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondents for 324, 326 IPC. It is submitted that the eye witenss PW/6 Kalu Ram has categorically established the factum of throwing acid by respondent accused on the petitioner. The other witnesses who reached at the place of occurrence had also supported the prosecution case. As per injury report also, the
[2023:RJ-JD:42211]
[CRLR-610/2022]
(3 of 5)
injured Nenu ram has received six acid burn injuries but the courts below have acquitted the accused respondent in the present case. Thus the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh order.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondent has been acquitted on the basis of statement of the witnesses which did not inspire confidence and were not found to be trustworthy. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have 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 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
(4 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JD:42211]
[CRLR-610/2022]
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.”
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 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 petitioner 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.
(5 of 5) [CRLR-610/2022]
[2023:RJ-JD:42211]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
193-BJSH/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal on appeal against conviction.
Whether the High Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal without compelling and substantial reasons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraReferred¶31
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¶37
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nenuram S/o Sh. Khuma Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Mukesh S/o Sh. Ramchandra
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manoj Kumar Garg
Parties & counsel
