Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Vijayendra on 26 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.100/2011 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VIJAYENDRA SINGH DATE: 26.07.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor
for the appellant-State.
**** Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. State has preferred this leave to appeal challenging the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused-respondent of the offence under Sections 456, 324 and 376/511 IPC.
3. A First Information Report No.184/2009 was registered at Police Station Bagad on the basis of a written report furnished by complainant Thawar Singh under Sections 456, 376/511 IPC. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 456, 324 and 376/511 IPC. Learned trial Court referred and discussed the prosecution evidence including the statement of prosecutrix PW6 and statement of PW5 Rajendra, son of prosecutrix in detail and thereafter material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses have been pointed out, which have been made basis for disbelieving the prosecution case.
4. The trial Court has observed that incident took place on 07.12.2009 and as per prosecution evidence, police reached at the spot, but while preparing Site Plan, so called wearings of accused, which were available at the spot, were not mentioned in it, incident took place on 7th December, 2009 and villagers including prosecutrix identified the accused on next day i.e 8th December, 2009 and thereafter written report was lodged, but still name of accused was not mentioned in the FIR.
5. The trial Court has also observed that as per prosecution evidence, accused was caught hold of and was handed over to police on 08.12.2009, whereas as per prosecution case, accused was arrested on 09.12.2009 and no reasonable explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for this material contradiction in the prosecution case. Other reasons have also been mentioned by the learned trial Court for coming to a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6. I minutely scanned the finding ofthe trial Court in the light of submissions made on behalf of appellant and I find that no illegality or perversity in the finding of the trial Court has been pointed so as to consider the compelling reasons for interference in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bacchudas alias Balaram & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 1236) observed that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the order of acquittal should not be interferred with unless there are some compelling and substantial reason or circumstances for doing so. Para 9 of the judgment(supra) is reproduced as under:
9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of injustice which may arise from acquittal of the guilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offences or not.
The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there is compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharahstra(1973(2)SCC 793); Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat(1996(9)SCC 225); Jaswant Vs. State of Harayana(2000(4)SCC 484); Rajkishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar(2003(11)SCC 519); State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh(2003(11)SCC 271); State of Punjab Vs. Phola Singh(2003(11)SCC 58); Suchand Pal Vs. Phani Pal(2003(11)SCC 527) and Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.(2004(11)SCC 410.
8. In view of above discussions, I do not find this case to be fit one to grant leave to appeal and the same is, accordingly, rejected.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
/KKC/