Dismissed

Ramchandra S/O Shri Prabhu Lal B/C Brahman v. Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Raghunath B/C Chorsiya

Rajasthan HC13 May 2024CRLR/108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging judgments of acquittal under Sections 365 and 34 IPC. The Court found no error in the evidence appreciation and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; stay applications were disposed of.

What the court decided

Ramchandra S/O Shri Prabhu Lal B/C Brahman Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23987]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 108/2019

¶4

Ramchandra S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Khedali Bhedoliya Thana Sadar Baran Dist. Baran (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Raghunath

¶8

Hemant S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal

¶9

Laddu @ Laddu Lal S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal All R/o Main Market, Mangrole Thana Mangrole

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : None present

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶13

13/05/2024

¶14

The accused-respondents faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 365/34 IPC. However, they were acquitted from the charge by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran, District Baran (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’) vide judgment dated 17.07.2014.

¶15

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the complainantpetitioner submitted a criminal appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Baran (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’). However, the same was rejected vide judgment dated 23.10.2018 and the judgment of acquittal dated 17.07.2014 was upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC.

[2024:RJ-JP:23987]

[CRLR-108/2019]

(2 of 4)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused-respondents alleging therein that on 03.11.2007, his son and Bhabhi Mohini Bai told him that her husband Ramesh Chand had not returned the amount borrowed from by the accused-respondents Kanhiyalal, his son Ladulal and Hemant Chorasiya, therefore, they have forcefully abducted him by taking him in a bus and this was witnessed by one Chaturbhuj. Upon this, crime No.198/2007 was registered under Section 365/34 IPC and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused-respondents for the above offences and, thereafter, charges were framed against them under Section 365/34 IPC. The accused-respondents denied all the charges and claimed trial.

¶20

During the course of trial, statements of as many as 10 witnesses were recorded and 11 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. Thereafter, explanation of accused-respondents was taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied their participation in the incident but in defence, no witness was examined.

¶21

After considering the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges vide judgment dated 17.07.2014.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner approached the Appellate Court. However, the said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2018.

[2024:RJ-JP:23987]

[CRLR-108/2019]

(3 of 4)

Feeling Aggrieved and dissatisfied by both judgments, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Contents of the revision petition indicate that the petitioner is aggrieved by both judgments on the ground that there was ample evidence available on the record to prosecute the accused-respondents but by recording an erroneous finding, the learned Courts below have seriously erred in passing the impugned judgments.

¶28

This Court has perused the material available on record and has gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.

¶29

This Court finds that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence available on record came to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondents, beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by acquitting the accused-respondents from all the charges levelled against them.

¶30

This Court is of the considered opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the both Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. This Court does not find any error in the finding recorded by both the Courts below either factual or legal, and therefore, which does not require any interference of this Court.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:23987]

[CRLR-108/2019]

In this background, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶36

MR/40

Ramchandra S/O Shri Prabhu Lal B/C Brahman v. Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Raghunath B/C Chorsiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ramchandra S/O Shri Prabhu Lal B/C Brahman v. Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Raghunath B/C Chorsiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Banshi Lal S/O Late Shri Pesu Mal

Prithvi Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Prasad and Ors.

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahai Yogi Vs Gram Panchayat Hansmahal

Suwalal Son of Gopi by Caste Raigar Vs State of

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Radheshyam Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ishu S/O Pooran Singh Vs State of Rajasthan