Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Singh vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:17198) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17198] (1 of 5) [CRLR-569/2005]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 569/2005
Prahlad Singh S/o Ashu Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village
Bilaniyasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Het Ram S/o Bhagdawat Ram, B/c Bishnoi
3. Kishan Lal S/o Bhagdawat Ram, B/c Bishnoi
4. Mohan Ram & Mohan Lal S/o Bhagdawat Ram, B/c Bishnoi
5. Bane Singh S/o Sabal Singh, B/c Rajput
All R/o Village Bilaniyasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
6. Ram Lal @ Ram Niwas S/o Het Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Kakad,
Presently Pink City Breverage, Ashok Nagar, Adarsh Chowk,
Jaipur.
7. Richhpal S/o Rameshwar Lal, B/c Bishnoi
8. Tarachand S/o Het Ram, B/c Bishnoi
Both R/o Village Kakad, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Mr. Sampatti Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.GA
Mr. Manish Dadhich
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
29.03.2025, according to which, the petitioner/complainant had
expired two years ago. The said report is hereby taken on record.
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 21.03.2005, passed by learned Additional
[2025:RJ-JD:17198] (2 of 5) [CRLR-569/2005]
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Session Case
No.186/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 8 from the offences punishable
under Sections 148, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 447, 436,
436/149 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2001, the petitioner-
complainant gave an oral information at Police Station Nokha to
the effect that on 19.06.2001, the accused persons came armed
with deadly weapon and assaulted him and his family members.
On the said oral complaint, Police registered a case against the
accused persons and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 8. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 8
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twenty-two witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited
certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 8 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, three witnesses were examined and exhibited certain
documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.03.2005 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 8 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 8 regarding commission of offence but the
[2025:RJ-JD:17198] (3 of 5) [CRLR-569/2005]
learned trial court did not consider the evidence and other aspects
of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 8 from the aforesaid offences. The learned
trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 8. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 8
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 148, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 447, 436, 436/149
IPC.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 8
has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner/complainant and submitted that the learned trial court
has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which
requires no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective.
There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 8 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 8 from offence under Sections
148, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 447, 436, 436/149 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:17198] (4 of 5) [CRLR-569/2005]
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479,', the Hon'ble 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
[2025:RJ-JD:17198] (5 of 5) [CRLR-569/2005]
acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against
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 trial 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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, 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. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
5-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
