State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohd. Sharif and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the trial court has failed to consider the statement of pw4 salman. k tkuk mfpr gs a 11. i have heard public prosecutor as well the counsel appearing for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case. 10 page 136 in which the lordships of the supreme court has observed in para 26 that 'it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the state of rajasthan has preferred this appeal under section 378(1)(iii) cr.p.c. against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by special judge (women atrocities & dowry cases) kota (rajasthan) (for short 'the learned trial court') passed in sessions case no. 140/1997, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under sections 363, 366, 376 and 120b ipc.2. brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.1996 at 10.45 pm complainant arshad hussain submitted a written report at p.s. kunhadi, kota, on the basis of which the police registered an fir no. 134/96 for the offence under sections 363 and 366 ipc.3. after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.4. the trial court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondents, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.5. the prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 9 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited.thereafter the statement of the accused-respondents under section 313 cr.p.c. were recorded. in defence the accused respondents did not produce any evidence.6. after conclusion of the trial, the trial court vide its judgment dated 14.3.2000 acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences.7. aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by trial court, the state of rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.8. in this appeal it has been submitted by mr. peeyush kumar, public prosecutor for the state that the trial court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondents. the trial court has erred in considering the facts merely only minor contradictions in fir and in statements of witnesses. it has also erred in relying upon the facts that accused respondents took away prosecutorix parvin with him forcibly in an auto and when they were taking away she did not cry. the trial court has failed to consider the statement of pw4 salman. thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by the trial court is erroneous one and be quashed and set aside.9. per-contra, mr. n.a. rathore, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. there is. no evidence available on record that the accused respondent sharif has committed rape with the prosecutorix. there is also no evidence available on record that the accused respondent has enticed the prosecutorix parvin. thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by the trial court needs no interference of this court.10. mr. rathore, has further drawn attention of the court to para nqs. 43 and 44 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:43- bl izdkj vfhk;kstu dh vksj ls tks lk{; i=koyh ij miyc/k gs mlls ;g flfkfr li'v gs fd ijohu foods o le> ds ;ksx; fkh vksj og viuh bpnk ls vfhk;qdr ds lkfk x;h fkh ,slh flfkfr esa vfhk;qdrx.k dks fdlh vijk/k dk nks'kh ugh ekuk tk ldrk a tslk fd fd-yk-fj- jkt- 1991 ik`- 555 ';kelqunj c- jkt- jkt; ds fofu'p; esa dgk x;k gs fd ym+dh 14 o'kz ds ij ijurq 18 o'kz ls uhps fkh] tslk tslk fd izlrqr izdj.k esa gs] vfhk;qdr us u rks mls mrizsfjr fd;k vksj u qqlyk;k vksj og viuh bpnk ls mlds lkfk x;h rks vfhk;qdr dks lansg dk ykhk fn;k tkosxk a izlrqr izdj.k dh flfkfr hkh blh ds leku gs & ijohu dh mez ;|fi 18 o'kz ls de gs ijurq og le> o foosd ds ;ksx; gs & izn'kz mh- 19 i= ls ;g flfkfr li'v gs fd og loa; viuh bpnk ls 'kjhq ds lkfk x;h fkh rks ,slh flfkfr esa vfhk;qdrx.k dks fdlh vijk/k ls nks'kh ugh ekuk tk ldrk a blh dze esa vfhk;qdrx.k dh vksj ls ,-vkbz-vkj- 1995lq-dks- 2169 ';ke c- egkjk'v jkt; dk fofu'p; is'k fd;k ftlesa vfhk;ksd=h us ys tkrs le; dksbz fojks/k ;k 'kksj ugh fd;k vksj og viuh bpnk ls vfhk;qdr ds lkfk x;h fkh ;|fi og 18 o'kz dh ugh gqbz fkh rc hkh vfhk;qdr dks nks'kh ugh ekuk x;k a 44- bl izdkj vfhk;kstu lk{; ls ;g fdlh izdkj lkfcr ugh gks ik;k fd vfhk;qdrx.k ijohu dks cgyk qqlyk dj vius lkfk ys x;s gks cfyd vfhk;qdrx.k ijohu dks ys x;s gks bl ckr dk hkh dksbz lk{; ugh gs cfyd izn'kz mh- 19 i= ls ;g li'v gksrk gs fd og loa; 'kjhq ds lkfk tkus ds fy, rrij fkh a 'kjhq }kjk dksbz cykrdkj fd;k x;k gks & ,slk hkh dksbz lk{; ugh gs vksj ,slh flfkfr esaa vfhk;qdrx.k dks lansg dk ykhk fn;k tkuk mfpr gs a11. i have heard public prosecutor as well the counsel appearing for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case.12. having gone through the impugned judgment 14.3.2000 passed by the trial court, i find that the trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents.the court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the hon'ble supreme court:umrao v. state of harayana and ors. : sc 2006 vol. 10 page 136 in which the lordships of the supreme court has observed in para 26 that 'it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.'13. looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents for the offence for which they have been acquitted and the trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. i have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.14. it may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the high court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight age and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, high court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.15. accordingly, this appeal filed by the state of rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 14.3.2000 passed by special judge (women atrocities & dowry cases) kota (rajasthan) passed in sessions case no. 140/1997.