Dismissed

State v. Ram Chandra and Anr.

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2024CRLA/223/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused persons charged with embezzlement under Sections 408 and 477 IPC. The Court held that the trial court's reasoned order did not warrant interference as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the trial court's order of acquittal was upheld. The trial court record was sent back to the court of records.

State Vs Ram Chandra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:16440]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 223/1991

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Ramchandra S/o Dhanna Ram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Manor, District, Birwara, at present Kachela.

¶8

Gangaram S/o Dhukala Ram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Alibav, PS Chitalwana, District Sanchore.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. RJ Punia

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Judgment

¶13

16/04/2024

¶14

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 14.11.1990, passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Sanchore in Cr. Case No.22/1989, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.1980, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Jalore submitted a written report at PS Chitalwana through post, with the allegations that the accused-respondents had committed embezzlement in the society. On the said report, Police registered the case against the accusedrespondents for offence under Section 408 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, it was found that the accusedrespondent No.1 & 2 had embezzled Rs.1791.67/- and Rs.1900/respectively. After investigation, police filed challan against the

[2024:RJ-JD:16440]

[CRLA-223/1991]

(2 of 4)

accused-respondents. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC was framed by the trial court against the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial.

¶20

During the course of trial, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

¶21

Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.11.1990 acquitted the accusedrespondents from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents regarding commission of embezzlement in the society but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

¶23

Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

¶25

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has

[2024:RJ-JD:16440]

[CRLA-223/1991]

(3 of 4)

considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accusedrespondents from offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

¶30

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State 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. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.

¶31

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:

¶32

“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.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:16440]

[CRLA-223/1991]

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:--

¶37

“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.”

¶38

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 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.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶40

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

¶41

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶42

65-MS/-

State v. Ram Chandra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Ram Chandra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Labana Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan

Gorav @ Chhotuda Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Dudi @ Vishal Dudi Vs State of Rajasthan