Varsha vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7291 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30064]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 741/2022

Varsha W/o Haridev Garg, Aged About 36 Years, Badgav, At Present Ramanlal Garg, R/o College Road, Opp. Kabristan, Near Vitthal Auto Garage, Banswara, Dist. Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Haridev S/o Chagan Lal Garg, Badganv, Teh. And Dist.

Banswara.

3. Smt. Kamla W/o Chagan Lal Garg, Badganv, Teh. And Dist. Banswara.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Bhawani Singh
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
                                 Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

15/09/2023

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, a challenge is

made to the judgment dated 29.10.2013, whereby the accused

respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections

498-A, 323/34 and 406 IPC. The criminal appeal bearing

No.12/2015 filed against the judgment of acquittal has also been

dismissed after opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

judgments passed by the first instance and as well as of the court

of appeal. It appears that the learned trial court has examined the

evidence brought on record and thus had reached on the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case

[2023:RJ-JD:30064] (2 of 2) [CRLR-741/2022]

beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondents and

thus acquitted them. A further examination for the purpose of

critical appreciation of the evidence brought on record has been

made by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara and whereafter

concurred the findings reached by the trial court. The indisputed

facts emanating from the record are that the marriage of the

petitioner got solemnized with accused Haridev on 09.05.2008.

The prosecution witness-Nathulal has deposed before the court

that the petitioner stayed her matrimonial house for a month only

and whereafter she had gone to her parents home. The

prosecution witnesses PW-5 Moti Lal has stated altogether a

different story that what has been alleged in the complaint.

Petitioner is examined as PW-2. The discrepancies and major

contradiction have been observed by the learned trial court and

further examination of the same has been made by learned

Sessions Judge, thus, I see no reason for interference in a well

reasoned judgment of acquittal. Otherwise also the court of

revision should show reluctance in interfering in a judgment of

acquittal until it is found that the judgment of acquittal is a

product of total consideration of the evidence on record.

3. The powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are limited to examine

the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment which has

aptly been seen by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Hence, there is no force in this petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 206-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)