Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ashok Soni vs Navneet Atal (2025:Rj-Jd:5078) on 27 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5078]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 336/2023
Ashok Soni S/o Bhanwarlal Soni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Ashok Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Navneet Atal S/o Shyamsundar Atal, C/o Lalita Sharma R/o
14/28 Nehru Vihar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. At Present Is Saarthi
Infrastructure, Sanganeri Gate, Near Petrol Pump, Bhilwara
(Raj.).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubham Shastri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Magendra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/01/2025
Instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the
appellant-complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the
acquittal of the accused-respondent from offence under Sections
406 & 420 IPC vide judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhilwara, in Cr. Case
No.22/2014 (CIS No.16982/2015).
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the
appellant-complainant before the concerned Court to the effect
that he is a property dealer and is acquainted with the accused-
respondent, who is also a property dealer. The accused-
respondent sold five houses to the appellant and executed the
sale-deeds. Before selling the said houses, the accused-
respondent assured the appellant that there were no loan and
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:08:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5078] (2 of 5) [CRLLA-336/2023]
disputes in respect of the said houses. Subsequently, it came to
the knowledge of the appellant that the accused-respondent had
taken a loan on the patta of the said properties and before selling
these properties to the appellant, the accused-respondent had
already sold these properties to many other persons. It was
alleged that the accused-respondent had committed fraud with the
appellant.
The concerned court sent the complaint under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. to SHO, City Kotwali, Bhilwara, who registered the
FIR against the accused-respondent and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, Police filed challan against
the accused-respondent under Sections 406, 420 IPC. Thereafter,
the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondent denied
the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement
of accused respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 17.01.2023 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal leave
to appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent from offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC.
While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has
not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its
right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:08:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5078] (3 of 5) [CRLLA-336/2023]
been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 406 &
420 IPC.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the
judgment of acquittal passed by the 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 Sections 406 & 420 IPC.
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.
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(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:08:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5078] (4 of 5) [CRLLA-336/2023]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
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. Learned counsel for the
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:08:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5078] (5 of 5) [CRLLA-336/2023]
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.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal leave to appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
70-MS/-
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:08:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link