Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhola @ Surender Kour vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17129) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17129]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1256/2024
Dhola @ Surender Kour W/o Darshan Singh, Aged About 57
Years, R/o 1 Bwm, Teh. And Ps Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sri
Ganganagar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Viyaj Kumar S/o Dasram @ Darshan Singh, R/o Village
Kala Bahiya, Ps Kartarpur, Dist. Jalandar, Punjab.
Currently R/o Gali No. 01, Hari Krishan Vihar, Ps
Meharban, Teh. And Dist. Ludhiana, Punjab.
3. Aasha W/o Yashpal, R/o Village Kala Bahiya, Ps Kartarpur,
Dist. Jalandar, Punjab. Currently R/o Village Nasrala, Teh.
And Ps Hoshiyarpur Dist. Hoshiyarpur, Punjab.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
02/04/2025
Instant criminal revision petition has filed under Section 397
& 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Raisinghnagar, District
Anoopgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2012 whereby, the appellate
Court upheld the judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar
acquitting the respondent No.2 & 3 from the offence under Section
420, 467 & 471 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:17129] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1256/2024]
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner
filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 & 3 who are son and
daughter of Darshan Singh wants to grab the land of petitioner. On
the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner, the court below took
cognizance against the respondents for offence under Section 420,
467, 471 IPC and a Criminal case was registered in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. Thereafter,
charges of the case were framed against the respondent no.2 for
aforesaid offences. The accused respondents denied the charges
and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case examined four
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded,
who examined two witnesses in defence.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the
respondent no.2 & 3 from the offences vide its judgment dated
29.08.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Raisinghnagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the
judgment dated 29.08.2012 and dismissed the appeal of petitioner
vide judgment dated 02.07.2024. Hence, this revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts
below without going through the entire record and evidence
acquitted the respondent No.2 & 3. It is submitted that the
petitioner had got exhibited various documents which clearly
revealed that the name of father of respondent no.2 & 3 is not
[2025:RJ-JD:17129] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1256/2024]
Mahanga Ram but Darshan Singh @ Darshan Das. Further as per
school record and evidence of Head master, the name of father of
respondents is Darshan Singh. However, the trial court acquitted
the respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. It is argued that
the learned trial court ignored the evidence brought on record
which resulted into erroneous acquittal of the accused respondent
no.2 & 3. Thus the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be
set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court
for passing fresh order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the
material available on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the
learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondent no.2
& 3 have been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the respondents for offence under
Section 420, 467, 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial
court has observed that the complainant did not present any
document to support his claim in Court nor provided testimony
regarding them. The court found that the evidence of forged
documents presented by the accused was insufficient to
substantiate the charges of cheating and forgery against them
under Sectinos 420, 467 and 471 IPC. In the opinion of this Court,
the findings given by the Courts below are perfectly justified and
there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :
2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble
[2025:RJ-JD:17129] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1256/2024]
Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has
laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a
judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",
for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is
a compelling reason for interference. When the trial
Court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,
the appellate court is competent to reverse the
decision of the trial Court depending on the materials
placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in
appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or
a view which could not have been taken by the court
of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an
appeal/revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal
on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is
no substantial difference between an appeal/revision against
acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against
[2025:RJ-JD:17129] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1256/2024]
acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been
fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the Court is a
reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well
set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be
interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
142-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
