Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Ram Swaroop And Ors. … on 12 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:30489]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/1996
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Swaroop S/o Surja Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Nizampura, P.S.
Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu.
2. Rohtash S/o Kushla Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Gowla, P.S. Chidawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mridul Jain with
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/07/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
under Section 378(iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the
accused-respondents from offences under Sections 8/18 & 27(A)
and 29 of NDPS Act vide judgment dated 21.07.1995 passed by
learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Sriganganagar, in Cr. Case
No.49/1993.
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.1993 C.I. Sukhdev
Singh, Police Station Sadulshahar received an information that
accused respondent Ramswaroop came to Sadulshahar with 5-6
Kgs. opium. Upon which, the Police conducted a blockade and
caught respondent Ramswaroop, who was having opium with him
and that too without any valid license. Thereafter, an FIR was
registered against the accused-respondents and after usual
investigation, the police filed challan against them. Thereafter, the
trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondents and
framed the charge for offence under Sections 8/18, 29-A and 29
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30489] (2 of 5) [CRLA-447/1996]
of NDPS Act. The accused-respondents denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statement of accused-respondents were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.07.1995 acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 8/18 & 27(A) and 29 of
NDPS Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that
there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents
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-respondents from offence
under Sections 8/18 & 27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act. The learned trial
court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.
Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the
prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that
the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment
of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper
and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30489] (3 of 5) [CRLA-447/1996]
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-respondents beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 8/18 & 27(A) and 29 of
NDPS 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
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the appellate(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30489] (4 of 5) [CRLA-447/1996]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.”
Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs.
Sanjay Ram Tamta, reported (2025) 2 SCC 159,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would
be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially
since the presumption of innocence that is always
available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the
acquittal and unless there are very substantive and
compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal
of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the
findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible
from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate
courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of
Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to
various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid
down the principle in the following manner in SCC para
24:
24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal
position that the interference with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30489] (5 of 5) [CRLA-447/1996]warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same
is based on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views
are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt
of the accused is possible from the evidence available
on record.”
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
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
44-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)