Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash Bhardwaj – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1999
Decided on : 18-10-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 364, 201 - Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2)(v) - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence linking them to the crime, despite the prosecution's claims of foul play. The appellate court emphasized the need for clear evidence to overturn an acquittal, reaffirming the presumption of innocence. (Paras 11-17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - The appellate court's role in reviewing acquittals is limited; it must respect the trial court's findings unless a clear error is demonstrated. (Paras 14-16)
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 17.10.1998, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, District – Chittorgarh in Special Criminal Case No.35/1997, whereby the accused-respondent Ashwani Bhardwaj was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 or 302/34/149 & 364/201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and accused-respondents Ravindra Kumar and Dilip Kumar Sharma were acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 or 302/34/149-201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on 09.12.1992 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1999.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State are that on the night of 09.12.1992 the alleged incident occurred. The complainant - Smt. Nirmla (wife of the deceased – Ashok Kumar) submitted a written report (Ex.P/32) on 04.06.1993 before the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, whereupon the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh directed the Station House Officer to lodge an FIR under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code and for conducting an investigation in the matter. The investigation was proceeded accordingly. Complainant Nirmla in her written report stated that she was living at House No.15-A at Pratap Nagar, District Chittorgarh with her husband and her husband was working with the employer Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj who was indulged in trade of drugs. She stated that accused-respondent Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj and Bheru Singh came to their house and they asked her husband Ashok Kumar (deceased) to go to Neemach due to some official work of the company however due to his illness, deceased - Ashok Kumar denied them to go but they pressurized him whereupon the deceased agreed to go with them. She further stated that the deceased wanted to take his own car but he was persuaded not to take the same and the accused-respondents took the deceased with them in their car. She further stated that on the next day i.e. 10.12.1992, an information was received to her by her brother-in-law Vinod that there was an accident that took place near Sikar and the deceased – Ashok Kumar was seriously injured therein. On 10.12.1992, the deceased was taken to Jhunjunu in serious condition where he passed away. On 11.12.1992 at around 06:00 a.m. dead body of her husband was brought to their house. The cremation took place on 11.12.1992. Smt. Nirmla (wife of deceased) has made allegations of the accident theory to be wrong and alleged that due to an ongoing dispute between her husband and the accused-respondents, the murder of her husband was committed by them.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by complainant – Nirmala (wife of the deceased), an FIR bearing No.244/1993 was lodged under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj, Ravindra Kumar and Dilip for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 & 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the trial commenced.
5. The learned trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 302 or 302/34/149 & 364/201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused-respondent Ashwani Kumar. The accused- respondents Ravindra Kumar and Dilip Kumar Sharma were charged for the offences
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds clear evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
The presumption of innocence remains until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal without clear evidence of error or illegality in the trial c....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless there is clear error in the trial court's evaluation of evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount in criminal law, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or possibility of guilt is insufficient for conviction.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
An appellate court must respect acquittals and only intervene if the trial court's judgment is legally erroneous or misinterprets evidence, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of error or misjudgment by the trial court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
