Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
Rajendra Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Non-Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2014
Decided On : 16-11-2017
For the Appellant :Aanchal Singh for Mr. R.B. Mathur, Advocates
For the Non-Appellant :B.N. Sandhu (AAG) P.P., Mahipal Kherra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence in cases of acquittal and the principle of interference with judgments of acquittal.
Headnote:
378(4) Cr.P.C - Criminal Appeal - 323, 341, 435 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of sections 323, 341, and 435 of the Indian Penal Code and the legal principles related to joint trial of accused persons. The court highlighted the importance of re-appreciating evidence in cases of acquittal and the principle of interference with judgments of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant complainant challenged the acquittal of the accused respondent No. 3-Prem Prakash Sharma from charges under sections 323, 341, and 435 IPC. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, which was found to have contradictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal of the accused respondent No. 3 was just and proper, based on a full appreciation of the evidence. It emphasized the duty of the Appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence in cases of acquittal and the principle of interference with judgments of acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the reliance on the judgment related to joint trial of accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of re-appreciating evidence in cases of acquittal and the principle of interference with judgments of acquittal. It also highlighted the legal principles related to joint trial of accused persons.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal filed by the appellant complainant was dismissed, and the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 21.08.2009 was confirmed.
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
A challenge has been made by the appellant complainant in the instant criminal appeal filed under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C, 1973 to the Judgment dated 21.08.2009 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, S.No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Raj.) ('the learned trial court') passed in Criminal Case Nos. 588/1996, State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Kalra & Anr., whereby the accused respondent No. 2 Mahendra Kalra has been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges levelled against him under sections 323, 341 and 435 I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.3.1998 complainant Rajendra Kumar Sharma (PW2) submitted a written report (Ex.P3) to the SHO, Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur to this effect that he resides in House No. 2499 situated in Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta. Due to his quarrel with his elder brothers he lives in his in-laws. Today on 4.3.1998 from his in-laws he came to the house of his sister situated in Kagadiwada on motorcycle. Behind him his elder brother Prem Prakash and Mahendra Kalra came on motor-cycle and after stopping him gave beating to him from fists. These persons after taking petrol from his motorcycle, burnt the said motorcycle.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P3), an FIR No. 57/1998 (Ex.P4) was got registered for the charge under sections 341, 323 and 427 IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondents. Afterwards the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.
5. Thereafter, the learned trial court read over the charge in substance to the accused respondents, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced six witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited.
7. On the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, the learned APP moved an application on 16.04.2001 under section 216 Cr.P.C, 1973 before the learned trial court for alteration of charge. On the said application, the learned trial court passed an order by which amended charge under section 435 IPC was framed in-stead of 427 IPC after having charge under sections 323, 341 IPC. During the course of trial accused respondent No. 2-Mahendra Kalra remained absent as a result of which his bail bonds were cancelled and on 14.02.2006 he was declared as absconder. Thus, on the aforesaid basis, the learned trial court tried the matter only against accused respondent No. 3-Prem Kumar Sharma.
8. Thereafter, the statement of the accused respondent No. 3-Prem Prakash Sharma was recorded under sections 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence the accused respondent No. 3 did not produce any witness.
9. The learned trial court after hearing acquitted the accused respondent No. 3- Prem Prakash Sharma vide impugned Judgment dated 21.08.2009 from the charges levelled against him.
10. The appellant complainant aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused respondent No.-3 Prem Prakash Sharma has filed instant criminal appeal before this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant complainant has argued that the learned trial court has not appreciated the fact that all the ingredients of provisions of sections 323, 341 and 435 IPC were clearly proved. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned trial court to acquit the accused respondent No. 3-Prem Prakash Sharma for the charges levelled against him. Counsel argued that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has given benefit of doubt to accused appellant No. 3 Prem Prakash Sharma on flimsy grounds. Counsel argued that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution in its correct perspective. Counsel argued that facts related to both the accused respondents are identical despite that on the one side the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused respondent No. 2- Mahendra Kalra of t
