The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of respondents for offences under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC. The Court held that the trial court's detailed and reasoned acquittal, based on contradictions in witness statements, did not warrant interference.
Criminal Revision Petition 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:20858]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 157/2005
Doongar Mal S/o Shri Motiji Rebari, R/o Udpura-Ki-Dhani, Fatehpura, PS Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
All B/c Regari, R/o Udpura-Ki-Dhani, PS Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP Mr. RK Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
09/05/2024
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 27.11.2003, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No.2, Pratapgarh Camp Nimbahera in Sessions Case No.87/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 from the offence under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2002, complainant Bherulal submitted an oral report at concerned Police Station to the effect that the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 gave beatings to his
[2024:RJ-JD:20858]
[CRLR-157/2005]
(2 of 5)
brother Dungarmal with iron rod and lathies, due to which, his brother sustained grievous injuries.
Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered against the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 and after usual investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Court concerned.
Thereafter, learned trial court framed charges against the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 and upon denial of guilt, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2003 acquitted the accusedrespondents No.1 to 3 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 from offence under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accusedrespondent Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC.
[2024:RJ-JD:20858]
[CRLR-157/2005]
(3 of 5)
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has 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-respondent Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 from offence under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, 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. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the offences. 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.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479,' , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down
[2024:RJ-JD:20858]
[CRLR-157/2005]
(4 of 5)
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 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/revision 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/revision against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been
[2024:RJ-JD:20858]
[CRLR-157/2005]
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.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
192-MS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused requires interference by the High Court in revision?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraReferred¶39
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu DuttaReferred¶42
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Doongar Mal
Rati Ram
Barada
Jabarmal
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
