The appellate court's acquittal of the accused was upheld, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction.

Order

29/01/2024

1. Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from judgment dated 21.08.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar whereby appeal of respondent nos.1 to 3 was allowed and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2003 in criminal case no. 377/1994 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Sikar was set aside. As a result of which, respondent nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted from offence under Sections 452, 147/148, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC .

2. Aggrieved from aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the appellate court, the complainant has preferred instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for complainant-injured has submitted that on the basis of Parcha Bayaan Ex. P/1, F.I.R. was registered by police and after investigation, police has found involvement of all three respondents. He also submitted that petitioner was examined as PW-1 before the trial court wherein he corroborated the Parcha Bayaan and also involvement of respondents in the incident. He also referred the medical Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/6 along with statement of PW-2 Dr. S.S. Sharma and PW-3 Dr. O.P. Khandelwal to submit that the statement of injured were corroborated by the medical jurist, therefore, the evidence of PW- 1 was trustworthy but the appellate court without any reason has set aside the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court. He also submitted that PW-4 Champa, wife of injured and PW-5 Sukhdev Prasad were eye-witnesses who corroborated the incident but the appellate court has failed to consider the fact that the testimony of Ladu Ram was supported by all two eye-witnesses. He submitted that all these evidence on record inspire confidence to presume truthfulness of the incident. He also submitted that the appellate court without considering the material on record has travelled beyond the scope of appeal and transgressed its duty as a result of which respondents were acquitted. He also submitted that the respondents were part of a team of gang of land grabers whose illegal possession was removed by the District Administration. He specifically submitted that the technicalities are required to be ignored while considering the appeal against conviction but the appellate court has committed serious illegality and perversity while allowing the appeal, therefore, the judgment of appellate court is required to be set aside and of trial court is required to be restored.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. He submitted that the injuries upon the body of Ladu Ram were self-inflicted injuries and same was established from the cross-examination of witnesses. He also submitted that PW-4 and PW-5 were interested witnesses and they were not eye-witnesses, therefore, the testimony of PW-1 Ladu Ram is not supported by any independent eye-witness. He also submitted that there was animosity between the parties and as a result of this animosity the name of present respondents were arrayed as an accused at behest of complainant. He also submitted that no specific attribution of injury was made upon any of the respondent and same were not established from the evidence on record. He also submitted that there was lots of improvement in the statement of witnesses and these improvements only turned the testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 as unreliable. He also submitted that even the investigating officer and the person who recorded the Parcha Bayaan of PW-1 were not produced before the trial court. The trial court has ignored the defence raised by the accused. He also submitted that the revision petition is preferred from order of acquittal recorded by the appellate court and under the scope of 397/401 Cr.P.C. a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties along with Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

6. The facts of the matter in nutshell are