Amer Jaipur North (Raj) v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

Judgment

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Babulal Jangid S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Jangid, Resident Of Plot No.44, Mohammad Nagr, Nai Ki Thadi, Police Station Amer, Jaipur.

Rajni Jangid W/o Shri Babulal Jangid, Resident Of Plot No.44, Mohammad Nagr, Nai Ki Thadi, Police Station Amer, Jaipur.

4. Navratan Jangid S/o Shri Babulal Jangid, Resident Of Plot No.44, Mohammad Nagr, Nai Ki Thadi, Police Station Amer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma for Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 30/04/2025 Order

1. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2024 in Sessions Case No.231/2022 (100/2022) passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act (Additional Sessions Judge No.2) Jaipur Metro-II, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted from charge under Section 323 and Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA, Act), 1989. [2025:RJ-JP:19965] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-3429/2024]

2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the complainant has filed a report against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and also submitted evidence against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He also submitted that the complainant was wrongfully restrained, assaulted and abused with castiest slur. He further submitted that from the evidence, the complainant has established the charge, but the Trial Court only on ground that some of the witnesses have turned hostile, and not supported the case of prosecution has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He also submits that an order of conviction can be recorded on sole witness but the Trial Court has committed perversity.

3. Aforesaid contentions were supported by learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On basis of a complaint filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur FIR No.375/2011 was registered at P.S. Amer. After investigation, police has submitted a closure report (F.R.). On protest petition, an order of cognizance was passed. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused) were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have opted to submit defence evidence. Two witnesses DW-1 Babu Lal and DW-2 Gajanand were examined in defence and exhibited one document. Learned Trial [2025:RJ-JP:19965] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-3429/2024] Court has acquitted respondents-accused after considering the entire material.

6. The complainant examined himself as PW-3 and eye-witness as PW-2 (Ghanshyam Sharma) before the Trial Court. Other witnesses PW-5 (Mahendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Laxman Singh Shekhawat), PW-6 (Sita W/o Madan Lal), PW-7 (Ramesh Chand Meean S/o Kajod), PW-8 (Ummed Raiger S/o Badri Narayan), PW- 9 (Ganesh Saini S/o Tej Ram), PW-10 (Ghanshyam Jangid S/o Prabhu Dayal Jangid) and PW-11 (Gajanand S/o Khoobram) have not supported the case of prosecution.

7. PW-1 (Rajesh Mishra) in his cross-examination, has admitted that there is a land dispute between Babu Lal and Ram Kishan (PW-3). The admission also indicate that after the five minutes of incident, PW-1 (Rajesh Mishra) has reached the spot, which indicate that he is not an eye witness to the entire incident. Further his admission also indicate that there was scuffle between the parties. Ram Kishan Meena was examined as PW-3, and his cross-examination indicate that police has closed his case. His admission also indicate that he has named Ghanshyam, Rajesh and Gayatri as an eye-witness. The admission also shows that the communication between PW-3 (Ram Kishan Meena) and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and no one has witnessed or heard about any incident. The admission also indicate that there is a property dispute (civil dispute).

8. Having gone through the material available on record, it is evidence on record that as per complaint Ex.P-1, the incident is of

21.08.2011 and the complaint was filed on 24.08.2011, whereas [2025:RJ-JP:19965] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-3429/2024] FIR was registered on 05.09.2011. After investigation, police has closed the matter with the recommendation that the case is false, and no such incident has happened. After protest, the cognizance order was passed.

9. Herein this case, a dispute relating to property, is also on record and it indicates that may be due to property dispute, the instant case is filed. No one has seen abusing the appellant- complainant, therefore, the essential ingredients of public view is also not satisfied and the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing an order of acquittal in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

10. 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.

11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:19965] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-3429/2024] 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 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.

12. After considering aforesaid, no case for interference is made out, hence the instant criminal appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.

13. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant criminal appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. GAURAV /66 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J