Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankar Lal vs State on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 746/2020
Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Mularam, Aged About 64 Years, B/c Jangid,
R/o Shiyorani, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Mahendra S/o Khiyaliram, B/c Suthar, R/o Shiyorani, P.s.
Nohar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Rampyari W/o Chanan Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Shiyorani,
P.s. Nohar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4. Nikuram S/o Mahendra, B/c Suthar, R/o Shiyorani, P.s.
Nohar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
06/07/2021
The instant revision has been preferred by the
petitioner complainant Shankar Lal under Section 397 read with
Section 401 CrPC for assailing the judgment dated 04.09.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar in
Appeal No.86/2018 (under Section 372 CrPC), whereby the
appellate court rejected the victim's appeal filed by the petitioner
and affirmed the judgment dated 20.06.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal
Case No.349/2016 acquitting the respondents from the charges
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-746/2020]
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced
by the petitioner's counsel and have gone through the impugned
judgments and the record. The substratum of the petitioner's
case as per the FIR was that the respondents fabricated a
succession certificate on the letterhead of the Gram Panchayat
Shyorani and thereby they defrauded him. However, on a perusal
of the impugned judgment and the sworn testimony of the
petitioner and the other witnesses examined on oath, it is clear
that the original succession certificate was neither procured during
investigation nor the same was exhibited at the trial. No effort
was made by the prosecution or the petitioner to prove the alleged
true copy of the certificate by leading secondary evidence.
In this background, in absence of the original
document, there was no material whatsoever with the courts
below to have proceeded against the accused persons for the
offences of fraud and forgery. Two courts of competent
jurisdiction, after analyzing and appreciating the evidence led by
the prosecution have recorded concurrent findings of facts for
acquitting the respondents from the charges and for affirming
their acquittal in appeal.
As per Section 401 (3) CrPC, the High Court, while
exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot convert a finding of
acquittal recorded in favour of an accused into one of conviction.
Thus, the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while
deciding a revision against acquittal is very limited and it can only
direct de novo trial, which would be permissible only if failure of
justice has occasioned in recording acquittal of the accused.
However, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the
firm view that the acquittal of the respondents was the only
(3 of 3) [CRLR-746/2020]
permissible and logical view of the matter. Hence, I find no merit
in this revision, which is dismissed as such.
The record be returned to the court below.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
33-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
