Ganesh Kumar S/O Shri Kailash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6261 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4892/2022

Ganesh Kumar S/o Shri Kailash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Amli
Devalya, P.s. Ghad, District Tonk.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

20/09/2022

The petitioner is accused and facing trial in FIR No. 236/2018

registered with Mahila Thana, Police Station, Tonk corresponding

to Criminal Case No. 311/2018.

By the impugned judgment dated 02/05/2022, the learned

Trial Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section

498A IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is worth to mention that the parties have entered into a

compromise and the court below had already accepted

compounding under Section 406 IPC, however, did not accept

compromise under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act as these offences are not compoundable.

No prosecution witness supported the prosecution case and

all were declared hostile.

In the circumstance, according to learned counsel for

petitioner, the petitioner should have been acquitted with honour

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-4892/2022]

and should not have been acquitted on "benefit of doubt" as

recorded by the learned Trial Judge.

I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner since there was no evidence and therefore, there was no

question of only doubting the prosecution case. It was a case of

clean acquittal in absence of evidence.

The judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt could be

recorded only when there is prosecution witness in support of the

charge and the prosecution evidence suffers from doubt. However,

in cases where the prosecution evidence is nil in the sense that no

prosecution witness turned up to say that he had witnessed the

occurrence or the prosecution witnesses examined deposed that

he does not know about the occurrence or had not seen the

occurrence the same would be a case of clean acquittal.

Since no appeal is maintainable at the hands of accused

persons against the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner has

knocked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

prevent the miscarriage of justice.

Considering the facts of the case, the trial court judgment

stands quashed and it is directed that by the impugned judgment,

the petitioner would be treated as acquitted with no stigma.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

ANIL SHARMA /104

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)