IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence is fortified by an acquittal, and appellate courts should only interfere with acquittals in cases of compelling and substantial reasons.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 03.03.2004, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore Camp Bhinmal in Sessions Case No.07/2003 (30/2002), whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents No.1 to 4 from the offence under Sections 364, 365, 323, 324/34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.1998, complainant Sujanaram submitted a written report at concerned Police Station to the effect that yesterday, the accused persons came to the well of Ganga Ram and started destroying the fencing. At that time, the brother of the complainant injured Kishana Ram and two more persons were present there, who raised objection against the same. Upon which, the accused persons abused them. After some time, the accused-persons came back armed with lathies and hockey sticks and abducted Kishana Ram.

3. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered against the accused persons and after usual investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the Court concerned.

4. Thereafter, learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons and upon denial of guilt by the accused persons, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2004 acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 from offence under Sections 364, 365, 323, 325/34 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 364, 365, 323, 325/34 IPC.

7. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

9. 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 Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 from offence under Sections 364, 365, 323, 325/34 IPC.

10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners-complainant have 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 learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 from the offences. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.

11. 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 ca