Bahadur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has assailed the judgment dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi in Sessions Case No.14/2005 (3/2005), whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, as emerging from the record, is that on 11.06.2004, an unfortunate incident allegedly took place near village Joyla wherein a bus belonging to Khalsa Motors, plying on the Falna-Jalore route, after colliding with a jeep, was allegedly vandalized and set ablaze by a mob gathered at the place of occurrence. On the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant Bahadur Singh before the SHO, Police Station Shivganj, a criminal case for the offence under Section 436 IPC came to be registered and, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The case thereafter stood committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

The learned trial Court, after framing charge under Section 436 IPC against the accused persons, proceeded to record evidence adduced by the prosecution. Upon comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Court below arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused respondents vide judgment dated 25.09.2006. Hence the instant revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself in appreciation of evidence and has discarded trustworthy ocular testimony on insignificant discrepancies. It was argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established the complicity of the accused respondents in the incident of arson and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal suffers from grave illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has meticulously analyzed the entire evidence available on record and has recorded well-founded findings based upon sound judicial reasoning. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses suffered from material contradictions, unexplained improvements and serious infirmities and, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned Court below calls for no interference.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as also the entire material available on record.

A meticulous examination of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court reveals that the Court below has undertaken an exhaustive and threadbare scrutiny of the prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the testimony of each material witness and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while disbelieving the prosecution story.

6.1. The learned trial Court has rightly noticed that the very genesis of the prosecution case rested upon a written report wherein it was specifically alleged that a crowd comprising 50 to 100 persons had assembled at the place of occurrence and had indulged in vandalism and arson. At the inception itself, the complainant was admittedly unaware as to who precisely had set the bus on fire and the names of the accused persons were conspicuously absent in the first information report.

6.2. The learned trial Court has further rightly observed that material prosecution witnesses namely PW-04 Rooparam turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case in material particulars. The said witness categorically denied having seen the accused persons either vandalizing or setting the bus ablaze. Consequently, the prosecution version suffered a serious dent at its very foundation.

6.3. So far as PW-05 Ummedaram, the conductor of the bus, is concerned, the learned trial Court has rightly found his testimony to be wholly unreliable. The witness himself admitted that he was not acquainted with the accused persons earlier and that the names of the accused allegedly came to his knowledge nearly four months after the incident through the Manager of Khalsa Motors. Significantly, no test identification parade was ever conducted during investigation. The learned Court below has, therefore, rightly held that mere disclosure of names at a belated stage, unsupported by lawful identification proceedings, could not form a safe basis for conviction.

6.4. The learned trial Court has also meticulously examined the testimony of PW-07 Ganpat Singh and PW-08 Vanesingh and has rightly found their presence at the place of occurrence to be doubtful. The Court below has recorded a categorical finding that despite the alleged occurrence having taken place on 11.06.2004, the statements of these witnesses came to be recorded after an inordinate delay of several months without any plausible explanation forthcoming from the prosecution. Their names did not find mention in the FIR and no immediate disclosure regarding involvement of the accused persons was made by them before the investigating agency. The learned Court below has, therefore, rightly viewed their testimony with circumspection.

6.5. The learned trial Court has further observed that the incident allegedly occurred amidst a tumultuous gathering comprising a large crowd and considerable commotion prevailed at the spot. In such circumstances, accurate identification of specific individuals indulging in distinct overt acts became inherently doubtful. The prosecution utterly failed to establish by reliable and unimpeachable evidence as to which accused committed which specific act constituting the offence alleged.

6.7. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are founded upon a careful and rational appreciation of the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law. The view adopted by the learned Court below is not only a plausible view but also appears to be fully borne out from the evidence on record.

6.8. It is also of considerable significance that no challenge has been made by the State against the judgment of acquittal. The State, despite availability of statutory remedy, has consciously chosen not to assail the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The challenge has been laid solely at the instance of the complainant and, therefore, the scope of revisional scrutiny becomes even narrower and more circumscribed.

6.9. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that the revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal is extremely limited in its ambit. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be manifestly perverse, grossly illegal or resulting in palpable miscarriage of justice, interference in revision is not warranted. The revisional Court cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal for re-appreciation of evidence merely because another possible view may also exist.

Having carefully examined the impugned judgment in light of the settled legal principles governing interference against acquittal, this Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the appreciation of evidence undertaken by the learned trial Court. The learned Court below has rightly acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 after due and proper evaluation of the entire evidence available on record.

Consequently, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and meticulously articulated judgment dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi in Sessions Case No.14/2005 (3/2005). The instant Criminal Revision Petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.