Somprakesh vs State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 10235 Raj

(1 of 2) [CRLR-379/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 379/2018

Somprakesh S/o Banarsi Das, By Caste Agarwal, Resident Of Dhanmandi, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Shamsher Singh S/o Karnel Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chack 4 R.r.w Rohi Rodawali, P.s. Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC Mr. Jitendra Ojha

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

07/07/2021

The instant revision has been filed by the petitioner

complainant for assailing the judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed

by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.25/2017 filed by the

petitioner under Section 372 CrPC, whereby the judgment dated

21.11.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.474/2005 acquitting the

respondent from the offence under Section 420 IPC, in the

alternative Sections 406, 467, 468 IPC was affirmed.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the

impugned judgments and the record.

(2 of 2) [CRLR-379/2018]

At the outset, it may be mentioned here that two courts

of competent jurisdiction after appreciation and re-appreciation of

the evidence available on record have recorded finding on

acquittal in favour of the respondent and the judgment of acquittal

has been affirmed. Law is well-settled that the powers of the High

Court while entertaining a revision against acquittal are restricted

by Section 401 (3) CrPC and the judgment of acquittal cannot be

converted into one of conviction. The only permissible order in

such a situation would be to direct de novo trial, which is

permissible only if a failure of justice has occasioned in recording

acquittal of the accused.

On going through the impugned judgments and the

record, I find that the trial court held in its judgment dated

21.11.2016 that the complainant's own witnesses did not support

the allegedly fabricated/fraudulent agreement to sale, which made

the entire story of the complainant doubtful. This view cannot be

said to be perverse or contrary to record so as to direct retrial of

the respondent.

As a consequence, I find no merit in this revision, which

is dismissed as such. The record be returned to the trial court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

30-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)