State of Rajasthan vs Misri Lal and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.9.1999, passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hindaun in Criminal Case No. 36/95, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 323/149 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ballu @ Pushpender filed a first information report in the police station Hindaun in which he has stated that when he was sleeping in his house, accused respondents entered his house and Naresh has inflicted injury upon his neck by sword, again Naresh inflicted an injury upon his hand and a part of left ear was also cut. Accused Sashi inflicted injury in the chest of the, complainant by knife, accused Renu inflicted injury by biting on his shoulder and Smt. Virma wife of Naresh has beaten Dantli. Upon hearing hue and cry, Vinod, Vasudev and some other persons reached there and rescued him.

Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case (FIR No. 436/94) Exp. 6 and after investigation, the police filed a challan before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 326 & 307 IPC who committed the case to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hindaun City. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 & 323/149 IPC and the charges were read over and explained to them. The accused respondents denied the charges framed against them and claimed for trial.

During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as Nine witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Therefore, the statements of accused respondent were also recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court through its judgment and order dated 1.9.1999, acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them.

Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court dated 1.9.1999, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same.

In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper manner. He has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW.l Dr. Namo Narain who has proved the injury report. It is further contended that PW. 9 Pushpender has stated in his statement that accused Naresh inflicted injury by sword in his neck and shoulder. But the learned trial Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and acquitted the accused respondent. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

Lastly he contended that in view of the above, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents be punished for the charges as leveled against him.

On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Singh Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused respondents has urged to this Court that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents after proper appreciation of prosecution evidence. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the judgment and order of the trial Court.

Mr. Vikram Singh drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW.6 Vinod Kumar, PW. 7 Omprakash and PW. 8 Vasudev, whose statements are contradictory to each other. But this fact was not believed by the trial Court. He further drawn attention of this Court to page No. 7, 8 & 9 of the judgment of trial Court which reads as under:

vfHk;ksxh dh lk{; ij fo''okl u djus dk ,d vU; dkj.k ;g Hkh gS fd ?kVukLFky ij vfHk;ksxh ds ekrk&firk mifLFkr Fks] ijUrq vfHk;kstu us mudks ijhf{kr ugh djok;k] tcfd ,sls rhu xokg fouksn dqekj] oklqnso o vkse izdk''k dks ijhf{kr djok;s x;s gS ftuds edku Hkh ?kVuk LFky ls nwj gS ,oa ?kVuk LFky ij mudh mifLFkfr laHkkfor ugh gSA

vfHk;ksxh iq"isanz dh lk{; ij fo''okl u djus dk ,d vU; egRoiw.kZ dkj.k ;g Hkh gS fd vfHk;ksxh vkgr iq"isanz dh lk{; ,oa Mk- ueksukjk;.k ehuk ih-M- 9 dh lk{; eas pksVks ds lEcU/k esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gS] Mk- ehuk us iq"isanz ds ''kjhj ij dqy 10 pksVs vkuk crk;k gS] tcfd vfHk;ksxh iq"isUnz 10 pksVks dh iqf"V ugh djrk A mlus dsoy vius flj] dku] gkFk o vka[k ds uhps ilyh vkSj isV ij pksVsa vkuk crk;k gS tcfd vU; pksVs vkuk ugh crk;k gS A vfHk;ksxh iq"isanz dk dFku gS fd muds flj ij ryokj dh feJhyky us pksV dkfjr dh Mk- ehuk us vfHk;ksxh ds flj esa pksV dqUn gfFk;kj ls vkuk crk;k gS] ;g pksV ,slh ugh gS tks ryokj }kjk dkfjr dh tk lds A vfHk;ksxh us fojek }kjk M.Ms ls isV o ilfy;ksa eas pksV dkfjr djuk crk;k gS] tcfd fpfdRlk lk{; eas vfHk;ksxh ds isV ij dksbZ pksV vkuk ugh crk;k x;k vkSj mldh ilfy;ka ij tks pksV vkbZ gS] og /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ds dVs gq, ?kko gS A tks M.Ms ls vkuk laHko ugh gS A blds vfrfjDr ih-M- 1 Mk- ehuk us vfHk;ksxh ds nka;s o cka;s dU/kks ij [kjkspuqek pksV vkuk crk;k gS] tcfd vfHk;ksxh Loa; bu pksVks dh iqf"V ugh djrk A bl izdkj ekSf[kd lk{; o fpfdRlh; lk{; esa pksVks ds lEcU/k esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gksus ls vfHk;ksxh dh lk{; fo''oluh; ugh gSA

vfHk;ksxh iq"isanz ih-M- 9 dh lk{; ij fo''okl u djus dk ,d egRoiw.kZ dkj.k ;g gS fd vfHk;ksxh ds U;k;ky; es fn;s x, c;ku ,oa iqfyl dks fn;s x;s c;ku esa egRoiw.kZ fcUnqvks ij fojks/kkHkkl gS] ftl dkj.k vfHk;ksxh ds c;ku fo''oluh; ugh gS] vfHk;ksxh us vius iqfyl c;ku esa dgk gS fd js.kq us mlds nksusk dU/kks ij dkV fy;k] ijUrq bl egRoiw.kZ rF; ls U;k;ky; esa bUdkj fd;k gS A blus js.kq dh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkfr gh ugh crkbZ gS A vfHk;ksxh us izFke lwpuk fjiksZV ,oa iqfyl dks fn;s x;s c;ku es ''kkafr }kjk ck;h ilyh ij pkdw ls pksV dkfjr djuk dgk gS] ijUrq U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s c;ku ea mldk dFku gS fd pkdw dk iz;ksx ugh fd;k x;k] iqfyl c;ku esa vfHk;ksxh us ujs''k dh vkSjr }kjk vka[k ij pksV dkfjr djuk dgk gS] tc U;k;ky; ds dFku eas bl rF; ls bUdkj fd;k vkSj ;g pksV ''kkafr }kjk igqapkuk dFku fd;k gS A vfHk;ksxh us iqfyl c;ku esa ujs''k dh vkSjr ds ikl nkarjh gksuk crk;k gS tcfd U;k;ky; ds dFku esa blls badkj fd;k gS A blds vfrfjDr ?kVuk LFky Hkh lUnsg;qDr yxrk gS] vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vfHk;ksxh ds ?kj esa ?kqldj ekjihV djuk laHkkfor ugh gS tcfd vfHk;ksxh }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj es ?kqldj ekjihV djuk laHkkfor yxrk gS A vfHk;ksxh us ?kVukLFky ij [kwu fxjuk crk;k gS] ijUrq vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us ?kVuk LFky ij [kwu ugh ik;k A vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh vkSj vfHk;ksxh dh lk{; ls Li"V gS fd ?kVuk LFky ij dku dk VqdMk Hkh ugh ik;k x;kA

tc vfHk;ksxh iq"isUnz ih-M-9 dk eq[; c;ku gh fo''oluh; ugh gS] rks vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr xokgku fouksn dqekj ih-M-6 vkse izdk''k ih-M-7 o oklqnso ih-M-8 ds c;ku Hkh fo''oluh; ugh ekus tk ldrs A eSus bu xokgku ds c;kuks dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;k A buds iqfyl c;ku] U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s c;ku ,oa izFke lwpuk fjiksZV esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gS buds c;kuks o fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh Mk- ehuk ds c;kuks esa pksVks ds lEcU/k esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gS rFkk budh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkfr lUnsg;qDr gS A ih-M-6 fouksn dqekj us feJhyky o ujs''k dqekj }kjk vfHk;ksxh dks ryokj ls pksV dkfjr djuk rks crk;k gS] ijUrq fojek] ''kkafr vkSj js.kq }kjk dksbZ d`R; djuk ugh cryk;k gSA mlus vius iqfyl c;ku esa feJhyky ds ikl pkdw gksuk vkSj U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s c;ku ea ryokj gksuk crk;k gS] blh izdkj vkseizdk''k us vius iqfyl c;ku esa feJhyky ij pkdw gksuk crk;k gS] ijUrq U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s c;ku esa feJhyky ds ikl ryokj gksuk dFku fd;k gS] oklqnso ih-M- 8 dk dFku gS fd mldks ;g Kku ugh fd vkSjrks ds ikl D;k gfFk;kj Fks A mlus vkSjrks }kjk pksV dkfjr djuk Hkh Li"V ugh fd;k gS A bl izdkj rhuks Lora= xokgku dh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkfr lUnsg;qDr yxrh gSA

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the accused respondent and also gone through the record of the case.

Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 1.9.1999, passed by the trial court, I find the trial court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondents. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one by which he has rightly acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them.

The Court attention was also drawn on the following judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2006 10 SC 136 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court held as under:

It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.

Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In appeal, the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper Weight and consideration to the views of the trial judges as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt arid thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

For these reasons, I do not want to interfere with the judgment dated 1.9.1999 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge Hindaun City, District Karauli and the same is hereby confirmed.

The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby dismissed.