Vidhya Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10232 Raj

(1 of 3) [CRLR-1392/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1392/2019

Vidhya Devi D/o Shri Basti Ram W/o Lichhman, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Kumahar, R/o Kumahar Wala, At Present 44 R.b. Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Rami Devi W/o Roopa Ram, By Caste Kumahar, R/o Near C.c. Head, Rohi Sanwantsar, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Gurcharan Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o 7 P.s., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Jaisraj S/o Shri Jairam, By Caste Kumahar, R/o 7 P.s., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Kirti Pareek
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                     Order

07/07/2021

The instant revision under Section 397 read with

Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner Vidhya Devi

for assailing the judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by the

learned Addtional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar rejecting the

victim's appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 372 CrPC

and affirming the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Regular

Case No.81/2001 acquitting the respondents from the offences

punishable under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-1392/2019]

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgments.

At the outset, it may be stated here that two courts of

competent jurisdiction have, after thorough appreciation and re-

appreciation of the evidence available on record, recorded

concurrent findings of facts for acquitting the respondents from

the above offences and for upholding their acquittal. The

substratum of the allegations as set out by the petitioner in her

FIR was that the respondents accused fabricated the documents

and got executed the sale deed of the land, of which the petitioner

had exclusive right and title.

The trial court as well as the appellate court

appreciated the evidence of the Revenue Officer. Devi Lal Patwari

(P.W.5), who admitted that the accused Rami Devi was a joint

owner of the land in question and that the mutation entry to this

effect was made in her favour. After the mutation, petitioner

Vidhya Devi and the respondent Rami Devi both had absolute right

to sell their share of the land in question. Considering the ratio of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Mohd.

Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [2009 Cr.L.R. SC

471] both the court's below held that none of the documents

prepared in the case could be termed to be fabricated within the

meaning of Section 463 and 464 CrPC and rightly so in my

opinion.

Law is well-settled that while considering a revision

against acquittal, the High Court cannot convert a finding of

acquittal into one of conviction and the only permissible order

would be to direct de novo trial, which is only possible if there has

(3 of 3) [CRLR-1392/2019]

occasioned failure of justice in the decision of the case by the

courts below. However, after thorough appreciation of the

material available on record, I am of the opinion that the only

logical and legal outcome of the case at hand was the acquittal of

the respondents, which was rightly recorded by the courts below

by the impugned judgments, which do not suffer from any

infirmity or illegality warranting interference therein.

Hence, I find no merit in this revision, which is

dismissed as such.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

24-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)