Criminal appeal against acquittal for offences under Sections 341 and 395 IPC. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's decision which was based on material contradictions in witness statements.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:22032]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/2009
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar And Ors.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. |
Mukesh Trivedi,PP |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
B.S. Charan |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/05/2024
The appellant State has filed the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 21/2007 whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from the offences under Section 341, 395.
Brief facts of the case are that on 11.12.1994, the complainant Praveen Kumar submitted a written report at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara to the effect that on 09.12.1994, a truck bearing No. MOU-2995 was hired on which 291 cloth bundles were loaded for carrying the same to Hyderabad. The truck departed for some more loading to Nimbaheda office but the truck did not reach Nimbaheda. It was stated upon searching, neither the truck nor its driver was traceable and it seems that the driver of the truck has defrauded him.
On this report, an FIR was registered for offence under
[CRLA-54/2009]
[2024:RJ-JD:22032]
(2 of 5)
Section 407 and 420 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, challan was presented against the respondents before the competent court.
The trial Court framed charge against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 341, 395 IPC. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of sixteen witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded but they did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents for the charge levelled against them.
The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. It is argued that the prosecution had been able to prove its case by placing implicit evidence, however, the learned trial court merely on the basis of some contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, acquitted the respondents. It is argued that recovery of cloth was duly proved at the instance of the respondents, but the court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses and documents in correct perspective. 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.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents accused argued that
[2024:RJ-JD:22032]
[CRLA-54/2009]
(3 of 5)
the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
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 witnesses. The learned Trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that that the accused respondents. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified 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
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JD:22032]
[CRLA-54/2009]
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 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.
(5 of 5) [CRLA-54/2009]
[2024:RJ-JD:22032]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
173-BJSH/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's judgment of acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraReferred¶30
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¶36
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Shiv Kumar And Ors.
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
