Quashed

Hari Singh Royal S/O Shri Hanumanaram B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLR/333/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against appellate reversal of an acquittal under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The High Court found prosecution witnesses gave contradictory accounts of the recovery site and no independent witness was examined; the acquittal was restored and the conviction set aside.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hari Singh Royal S/O Shri Hanumanaram B/C Jat Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 333/2020

¶3

Hari Singh Royal S/o Shri Hanumanaram, R/o Keru, Police Station Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through P.P

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Singh Royal (in person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena-PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

29/05/2024

¶12

The petitioner present in-person.

¶13

The instant revision petition has been filed by the accusedpetitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) against the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prevention of Atrocities Cases Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.25/2019 submitted by the State against the judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No.177/2014 whereby the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act of 1950”).

¶14

By passing the impugned order dated 27.01.2020, the Appellate Court has accepted and allowed the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner.

¶15

[CRLR-333/2020]

¶16

(2 of 6)

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 were initiated on 30.11.2013, against the petitioner, without getting any search warrant and it was averred by the Excise Inspector, Circle Nawalgarh that after receiving secret information, a motorcycle was stopped during Nakabandi (barricading) at bus stand Keru and upon questioning the driver about his identification, he informed that his name is Hari Singh and while inspecting the motorcycle, certain bottles of liquor were found in a plastic bag and therefore, the vehicle was seized on the spot and the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, an F.I.R. No.35/2013-14 was registered under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the above offence and charge was framed against him under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, statements of as many as 7 witnesses were recorded and 16 documents were exhibited by the prosecution thereafter, explanation of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the participation in the incident and submitted that he has a valid licence to run a liquor shop and he has not committed any offence whatsoever, and since he has refused to give monthly bribe to the Excise Officer, they have falsely implicated him in the instant case because of the enmity. In defence, he has produced as many as 4 witnesses in support of his defence and 7 documents were exhibited. After appreciating the evidence available on the record, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950

¶18

[CRLR-333/2020]

¶19

(3 of 6)

¶20

vide judgment dated 25.10.2018. The State preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, however, the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 27.01.2020 and judgment of acquittal was converted into the judgment of conviction and instead of sentencing the appellant, benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was given to him.

¶21

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment dated 27.01.2020, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision petition. 6. Petitioner submits that no such incident has occurred and he has been falsely booked by the Excise Inspector because of the enmity. Petitioner (present in person) submits that as per the case of prosecution, the alleged incident occurred at village Keru while not a single incident witness was produced on the record in support of the case of prosecution. Petitioner submits that all witnesses of the prosecution were interested persons and they were all Excise Officials working in the Excise Department. Petitioner further submits that as per the statements of PW-3 Ami Lal, PW-5 Suresh Singh and PW-7 Surat Singh they claim to be themselves as site witnesses, but as per their evidence, the recovery has taken place at village Doomra while the alleged incident has taken place at village Keru. Petitioner submits that the distance of both these places is more than 3-4 kilometers, hence, under these circumstances, it is ipso facto clear that no incident has occurred and he has been falsely booked in the instant case. Petitioner submits that all these facts were appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2018 and accordingly, the benefit of doubt

¶22

[CRLR-333/2020]

¶23

(4 of 6)

¶24

was given to him and he was acquitted from the charges framed against him.

¶25

Petitioner submits that without any basis and without recording any cogent and reasoned finding, the learned Appellate Court has unnecessarily disturbed the finding recorded by the trial Court, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶26

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that there was an ample evidence against the petitioner for holding him guilty for the offence charged, but the trial Court has unnecessarily extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the Appellate Court has not committed any error in reversing the finding of acquittal into conviction, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶27

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. Perusal of the record as well as the evidence led by the prosecution indicate that as per the case of prosecution on the fateful day, i.e., 30.11.2013, after getting secret information, the motorcycle of the petitioner was stopped and inspected and allegedly certain bottles of liquor were found in a bag upon the said motorcycle which was in possession of the petitioner. Perusal of the record indicates that the aforesaid incident occurred prior to few days of the Assembly Elections and on a public road where a large amount of transportation was there and the site in question was a thickly populated area even then, not a single independent witness was made for the alleged recovery of the bottles of liqour.

¶28

[CRLR-333/2020]

¶29

(5 of 6)

¶30

Officials of the Department of Excise were made witnesses who are interested witnesses. Perusal of the statements of PW-3 Ami Lal, PW-5 Suresh Singh and PW-7 Surat Singh indicate that the alleged incident has taken place at village Doomra while as per the case of prosecution, the incident has occurred in the village of Keru, therefore, the prosecution itself is not clear that exactly where the incident has occurred. After appreciating all these facts and circumstances and evidence available on the record, benefit of doubt has been given to the petitioner by the learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated 25.10.2018. The learned Appellate Court without recording a cogent finding has reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court only on the reason that benefit of doubt cannot be given to the petitioner simply because the witnesses are interested and they belong to the Excise Department and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The Appellate Court might be right in the recording of such finding, but looking to the contradictory statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution with regard to the exact place of occurrence, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶31

It is well-settled proposition of law that whenever the two views are possible then the view which supports the accused should be followed. Herein the instant case, the Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

¶32

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the Appellate Court stands quashed and set aside and

¶33

(6 of 6)

¶34

[CRLR-333/2020]

¶35

the petitioner stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against

¶36

him.

¶37

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Aayush Sharma/73

Hari Singh Royal S/O Shri Hanumanaram B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hari Singh Royal S/O Shri Hanumanaram B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithun @ Chuuni S/O Khemchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjan S/O Karna, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh S/O Late Shri Pema Mehrat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bandhu Vs State and Anr.

Kalu Lal Vs State of Raj.