Station Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur Raj v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

Judgment

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Bhagwandas S/o Hari Ram, R/o Kishori Paysa, Town Kaman, Police Station Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.

3. Raju S/o Hariram, R/o Kishori Paysa, Town Kaman, Police Station Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar For Respondent(s) : None present for Respondents No.2 and 3 Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 08/04/2025 Order

1. Instant criminal leave to appeal is preferred by appellant- complainant aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated

03.09.2016 in Criminal Case No.226/2013 (611/2012) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, District Bhartpur, whereby, respondent-accused-Bhagwandas S/o Hari Ram and Raju S/o Hariram were acquitted from charge under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC.

2. Office has pointed out a delay of 1022 days and to substantiate the reasons of delay, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed. [2025:RJ-JP:15994] (2 of 5) [CRLLA-414/2019]

3. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that aggrieved from order of acquittal, a criminal appeal was filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur and same was dismissed on 05.04.2019, thereafter a revision petition was filed, which was withdrawn on 06.08.2019 and ultimately this criminal leave to appeal was filed. Thus, the reasons of delay was explained as approaching wrong forum. He further submits that two witnesses were examined by the appellant before Trial Court and both have corroborated allegations against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but learned Trial Court without cogent reason has discarded the evidence of witnesses of complainant and acquitted the respondents accused.

5. None present for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. On basis of a criminal complaint, an FIR No.90/2010 was registered at P.S. Deeg, District Bharatpur and after investigation, police has submitted negative closure report (F.R.). On protest petition, after recording statement of witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C., learned Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC. After trial, both the accused Bhagwandas and Raju were acquitted from charge under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC.

7. Aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 03.09.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, District Bhartpur, a criminal appeal No.49/2016 was filed before learned Additional [2025:RJ-JP:15994] (3 of 5) [CRLLA-414/2019] Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur and same was dismissed as not maintainable on 05.04.2019. Thereafter, a S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1198/2019 was filed and same was withdrawn on 06.08.2019 with liberty. Thereafter, this criminal leave to appeal was filed. Considering the reasons assigned for delay, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act is hereby allowed and delay in filing the leave to appeal is hereby condoned.

8. Application stands disposed of.

9. We have gone through the material available on record, particularly statement of PW-1 (Savitri) and PW-2 (Raman). Two documents Ex.P-1 (site plan) and Ex.P-2 (chalk FIR) were exhibited, by them. A cross-examination of PW-2 (Raman) clearly indicate that he is not an eye-witness to the incident. Thus, the case rest on sole eye-witness PW-1 (Savitri).

10. As per statement of PW-1 (Savitri), she was assaulted around 04.30 PM on 25.01.2010 by Bhagwandas and Raju and she sustained injuries. After assault, she was taken to the hospital at Deeg, then to Bharatpur and lastly to Jaipur.

11. The witness has neither informed about incident to anyone despite having a mobile phone. It was also admitted that Bodam Out Post is also near to the place of incident but she has not approached the police. PW-1 has admitted that she has filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against the accused. There is no corroborative evidence on record including medical evidence, therefore, the incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. [2025:RJ-JP:15994] (4 of 5) [CRLLA-414/2019]

12. Having considered the reasons assigned by Trial Court in light of evidence on record, I am of considered view that the Trial Court has not committed any error in the instant case, therefore, there is no perversity or illegality.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the [2025:RJ-JP:15994] (5 of 5) [CRLLA-414/2019] proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.

15. In view of aforesaid, the instant criminal leave to appeal sans merit and same is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. GAURAV /49 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J