Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dakhli Devi And Ors vs Bishan Singh And Ors on 16 December, 2013
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.646/2013 (Dakhli Devi & Ors. Versus Bishan Singh & Ors.) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.647/2013 (Dakhli Versus Bishan Singh & Ors.) Date of Order :: 16th December, 2013 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Vidhyut Gupta, counsel for petitioner(s) Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State
Revision Petition No. 646/2013:
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioners against the judgment dated 22.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrimadhoppur, District Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2013, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant-petitioner(s) and affirmed the judgment dated 27.2.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar in Criminal Case No. 169/1993 acquitting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 from the offence under Section 379 IPC; acquitting the accused respondents no. 5 to 7 from the offence under Sections 147, 447, 323 readwith 149 IPC and convicting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447 & 323 IPC granted them benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders' Act.
Revision Petition No. 647/2013:
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the judgment dated 22.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Madhoupr District Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2013, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondents and acquitted them for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447 & 323 IPC and set-aside the judgment of conviction dated 27.2.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar in Criminal Case No. 169/1993, by which he convicted the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447 and 323 IPC and granted them the benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act.
Since both the revision petition relate to one incident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
On 18.11.1983, complainant Kaluram, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.4 filed a criminal complaint against the accused respondents and others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Shri Madhopur. In support of his complaint, the complainant got recorded his statement and also got recorded the statement of his witnesses namely Mst. Dakha, Mst. Jyana, Mst. Kamla, Mst. Bodi, Kalyan Man, Bhagirath and Khemchand. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments and on the basis of the complaint as well as the statements of complainant and his witnesses vide order dated 16.6.1993 took cognizance of offence against the accused persons namely Bishan Singh, Prahlad Singh, Bharat Singh, Ramu Singh and Ummed Singh for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 323, 379 and against accused persons namely Karan Singh, Sukhveer Singh and Raghuveer Singh @ Ghadsi took cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 447, 323, 379 readwith Section 149 IPC and case was registered and accused persons were summoned. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, vide order dated 2.9.2009 framed charges against accused persons namely Bishan Singh, Bharat Singh, Prahlad Singh and Ramu Singh for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149, 447 IPC and against the remaining accused persons namely Karan Singh, Ghadsiram and Sukhveer for the offence under Sections 147, 447 and 323 IPC. The accused respondents denied for the same and claimed for trial. During trial, accused persons namely Bharat Singh S/o Prem Singh and Ummed Singh S/o Jaswant Singh died, hence the proceedings against them were dropped. Thereafter the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 27.2.2013 acquitting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 from the offence under Section 379 IPC, acquitting the accused respondents no. 5 to 7 from the charges under Sections 147, 447, 323 readwith Section 149 IPC, but while convicting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 IPC, granted them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Against the said judgment, the complainant party as also the accused respondents filed criminal appeals. The appeal filed by complainant party was dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the accused persons was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar vide judgment dated 22.4.2013 and the judgment of the trial court to the extent of convicting the accused respondents for the offence under Section 147, 447, 323/149 IPC and granting them the benefit of probation, was set-aside.
Against the said judgment dated 22.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, the present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the complainant-petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that the impugned judgments dated 22.4.2013 and 27.2.2013 passed by both the courts below are legally not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also the facts of the present case, hence the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 from the offence under Section 379 IPC, acquitting the accused respondents no. 5 to 7 from all the charges under Sections 147, 447, 323 readwith Section 149 IPC and while convicting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 IPC, granted them benefit of Probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned lower appellate court has also committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the accused respondents no. 1 to 4 from the offence under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 IPC. He has further contended that from the bare perusal of the FIR as well as from the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the above mentioned offences are fully made out and proved against the accused respondents. The learned courts below without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, have illegally and wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Hence, the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgments passed by the courts below and stated the same to be just and proper.
The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136, in which their Lordships of Supreme court observed in para no. 26 that:
"it is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.
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 weight 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. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed."
Having gone through the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, I find that the learned courts below have given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the proseuction proved against the accused respondents.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 had been charged and the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, were right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned courts below, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, both the aforesaid criminal revisions filed by the complainant fail and the same are hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgments of acquittal passed by the courts below.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
DK All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA