State Of Rajasthan vs Jahangir Khan (2025:Rj-Jd:30478) on 12 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Jahangir Khan (2025:Rj-Jd:30478) on 12 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:30478]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 453/1996

State Of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Jahangir Khan S/o Ishaq Khan, by caste Muslim, R/o Surapagla,
Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi. PS. Abu Raod (City)
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. P.R. Choudhary.


          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 304-A, 337,

338 and 279 IPC vide judgment dated 18.05.1995 passed by

learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu

Road, in Cr. Original Case No.831/1992.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Badaram and his

son Dhanraj were going to the hospital on his bicycle and when he

reached at Check-Post at about 11.00 a.m., a roadways bus

bearing registration NO.RNP-1119 driven by respondent rashly

and negligently hit them. Due to which, Dhanraj succumbed to

injuries. 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

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 07:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30478] (2 of 5) [CRLA-453/1996]

under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The accused-

respondent denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as ten witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 18.05.1995 acquitted the accused-

respondent from offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A

of IPC. 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-respondents from offence

under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 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

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 07:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30478] (3 of 5) [CRLA-453/1996]

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-respondent beyond all reasonable

doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondent from offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A

of IPC.

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 07:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30478] (4 of 5) [CRLA-453/1996]

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

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 07:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30478] (5 of 5) [CRLA-453/1996]

acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be
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
46-Ishan/-

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 07:09:47 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)