Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kamla Devi vs State Of Rajasthan And Another on 12 February, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Criminal Appeal No.961/2011 (Smt. Kamla Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr) Date of Judgment :: 12th February, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Ms. Sangeeta Vashistha, counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav, Dy. Government Advocate for the State of Rajasthan This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 7.7.2011 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Special Case No. 5/2009, whereby accused respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant against the accused respondent(s) at Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur for the offence under Sections 379, 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the accused respondent in the competent court. Thereafter trial court framed charges against the accused respondent/s, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused respondent/s were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent/s vide his impugned judgment dated 7.7.2011.
Against the said judgment dated 7.7.2011, this appeal was preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that accused respondent has wrongly been acquitted by the court below. He has further contended that the trial Judge has seriously erred in acquitting the accused respondent on the ground that the medial evidence does not corroborate the oral testimony of the witness Suman. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court in catena of judgment have held that there is no need of corroboration of medical evidence with the oral testimony of a lady, if she alleges that a person has tried to outrage her modesty, then certainly her testimony should be relied because no lady will level such type of allegation against any person unless and until she has been outraged by them. He has further contended that the learned trial Judge has seriously erred in acquitting the accused respondent by saying that some facts were not mentioned in the FIR. The FIR is not an encyclopedia, which should contain each and every fact in detail. Rather the FIR simply an information about commission of an offence. He has further contended that the allegations levelled against the accused respondent have been proved and established from the prosecution witnesses and the same has been medically corroborated from the evidence of Doctor PW-8 Dr. Sanjay Bundela, even then the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent by the impugned judgment, which is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State has contended that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent and passed a detailed judgment after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the Court below.
The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that 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 against the accused respondent and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though 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 weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge 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 and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Dy. Government Adv. appearing for the State and also gone through the record of the case.
Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA