Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Mool Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:24431) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24431]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 95/1996
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mool Singh S/o Sumer Singh, By caste Rajput, R/o Thawla, P.S.
Ahor, District Jalore
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
under Section 378(4) & (1) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the
accused-respondent from offences under Sections 307 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act vide
judgment dated 19.10.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/
ST (POA) Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No.15/1992.
Brief facts of the case are that the injured Pukhraj gave
statement to SHO Police Station Ahore on 11.07.1992 to the effect
that accused respondent Mool Singh shot on the complainant-
injured and he received injuries on the right leg thigh. On the said
complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and
after usual investigation, the police filed challan against him.
Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-
respondent and framed the charge for offence under Sections 307
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (2 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]
IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. The
accused-respondent denied the charge and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as sixteen witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and certain
documents were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 19.10.1995 acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that
there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent regarding
commission of offence but the learned trial court did not consider
the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right
perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent from offence
under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section
27 of Arms Act. The learned trial court has committed grave error
in acquitting the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned
judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for
aforesaid offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer
made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the
learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent
after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (3 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]
passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not
warrant any interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective.
There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act and Section 27 of Arms Act.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State has
failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge.
In the case of ‘Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,’ decided on September 5, 2011, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier
judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can
be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are “compelling and substantial
reasons”,for doing so. If the order is “clearly
unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for
interference. When the trial Court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (4 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the appellate
court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial
Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in
appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a
view which could not have been taken by the court of
competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal
against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The
preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial
difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view
the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted
by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached
by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the
acquittal may not be interfered with.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has failed
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:41:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24431] (5 of 5) [CRLA-95/1996]
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
56-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:41:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link