Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Matadeen Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 24 April, 2019
Author: Goverdhan Bardhar
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 957/2018
Matadeen Sharma S/o Late Shri Devi Dutt Sharma B/c Brahmin,
R/o Village Vrindavan, Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu,
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Keshar Devi S/o Begraj B/c Brahmin, R/o Vrindavan,
Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
3. Satyanarayan S/o Bajrang Lal B/c Brahmin, R/o
Vrindavan, Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
4. Sushil Kumar S/o Keshar Dev B/c Brahmin, R/o
Vrindavan, Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
5. Ramotar S/o Rameshwar B/c Brahmin, R/o Vrindavan,
Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
6. Raghunath S/o Rameshwar B/c Brahmin, R/o Vrindavan,
Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
7. Suman Kumar S/o Damodar B/c Brahmin, R/o Vrindavan,
Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
24/04/2019
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner-complainant against the judgment dated 24 th April, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby, learned Appellate Court, while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence of the trial court, acquitted the accused- (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:46:57 AM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-957/2018] respondents by giving benefit of doubt for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC.
The facts of the case are that complainant-petitioner (Matadeen Sharma) filed a criminal complaint against the accused-respondents before the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 22nd November, 2006. It is with regard to an incident took place in the night of 19th and 20th November, 2006. Learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu for registration and investigation of the case.
On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR No.149/2006 was registered at Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, 379 and 440 IPC. After making investigation, the police filed a negative final report against the accused-respondents.
Against the negative final report, the complainant-petitioner submitted a protest petition. Learned trial court after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences framed charges against the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
Learned counsel for complainant-petitioner argued that prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 2 documents in support of its case. Learned trial court after hearing the parties rightly convicted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC but instead of sentencing him granted benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act vide judgment dated 16th January, 2018.
Learned counsel further argued that the Appellate Court committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:46:57 AM) (3 of 4) [CRLR-957/2018] accused-respondents. Learned Appellate Court further failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are vitiated as being misreading and non-reading of the material evidence in support of the complainant-petitioner as well as on mere surmises and conjunctures.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for complainant-petitioner and perused the material available on record.
The Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and in acquitting the accused-respondents of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC held that there exists dispute regarding use of way between complainant-petitioner and the accused- respondents. The sole eye-witness is PW3 (Mangilal) and another eye-witness namely, Ramniwas, who was present with PW3, was not examined. Neither inspection report nor any report regarding damages on the site of dispute was produced on record. Likewise, the evidence regarding breaking of strip and damaging the wires of the field also not produced on record.
Complainant-petitioner-PW2 (Mangilal) admits that he was not present at the time of incidence but no explanation has been given for lodging the report belatedly. The witnesses are relatives of the complainant and it is an admitted case that there is dispute of way. Learned Appellate Court after assessing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of the offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court has rightly (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:46:57 AM) (4 of 4) [CRLR-957/2018] acquitted the accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt and the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Appellate Court warrants no interference.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J FATEH RAJ BOHRA (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:46:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)