Dismissed

Ganga Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 May 2024CRLR/747/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition filed against an acquittal by the trial court, the petitioner claimed the trial court ignored evidence. The High Court applied parameters for interfering with acquittals, finding no error of law or fact, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition has been dismissed; the record of the trial court is to be sent back forthwith.

Ganga Ram Vs State and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19013]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 747/2003

¶4

Ganga Ram S/o Shri Kelaji Vishnoi, R/o Village Sameliya, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan

¶8

Gopal S/o Gordhan Rebari

¶9

Ganga Ram S/o Gopal Rebari,

¶10

Mak Ram S/o Goverdhan Rebari,

¶11

Harmal S/o Gopal Rebari,

¶12

All R/o Village Sameliya, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S.D. Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
	Ms. Yogita Mohnani, for respondents No.2 to 5

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶16

Order

¶17

01/05/2024

¶18

Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.07.2003, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.122/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 Gopal from the offence under Sections 324 & 323 IPC, accused respondents No.3Ganga Ram from the offence under Sections 307 & 325 IPC, accused respondent No.4-Makram from the offence under Sections 325 IPC and accused respondent No.5-Harmal from the offence under Sections 324 IPC.

[2024:RJ-JD:19013]

[CRLR-747/2003]

(2 of 5)

Brief facts of the case are that on 08.02.2001 complainantpetitioner Ganga Ram and his son Vishnu went to their field at about 10:00 A.M., where they found that accused respondents No.2 to 5 were damaging the boundary wall and destroying thorny trees, when the petitioner and his son tried to stop them, the accused respondents attacked the petitioner and his son. Upon this, Mst. Ratni, Mst. Manju and Mst. Parsi went there to rescue them, they gave beating to them as well. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324 & 325 of IPC respectively in the Court concerned.

¶23

The Learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent No.2 Gopal of the offence under Sections 324 & 323 IPC, accused respondents No.3-Ganga Ram of the offence under Sections 307 & 325 IPC, accused respondent No.4-Makram of the offence under Sections 325 IPC and accused respondent No.5-Harmal of the offence under Sections 324 IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused-respondents, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as seventeen witnesses were examined. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.07.2003 acquitted the accusedrespondents from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-

[2024:RJ-JD:19013]

[CRLR-747/2003]

(3 of 5)

respondents 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 accusedrespondent No.2 Gopal from the offence under Sections 324 & 323 IPC, accused respondents No.3-Ganga Ram from the offence under Sections 307 & 325 IPC, accused respondent No.4-Makram from the offence under Sections 325 IPC and accused respondent No.5-Harmal from the offence under Sections 324 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 307, 323, 324 & 325 of IPC.

¶30

Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

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-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accusedrespondent No.2 Gopal from the offence under Sections 324 & 323

[2024:RJ-JD:19013]

[CRLR-747/2003]

(4 of 5)

IPC, accused respondents No.3-Ganga Ram from the offence under Sections 307 & 325 IPC, accused respondent No.4-Makram from the offence under Sections 325 IPC and accused respondent No.5-Harmal from the offence under Sections 324 IPC.

¶37

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellantcomplainant 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.

¶38

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:

¶39

“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.

¶40

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:--

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:19013]

[CRLR-747/2003]

“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.”

¶45

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 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.

¶46

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

¶47

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

¶48

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶49

9-Ishan/-

Ganga Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram v. State and Ors.

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

Sajjan Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Kumar @ Rinku Vs State of Rajasthan

Seshkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Kumar Vs State

Kunal Talach Vs Mahip Pancholi

Toshif Vs State of Rajasthan