[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Laliya (2025:Rj-Jd:52190) on 3 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52190]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3/1998
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Laliya S/o Valaji, R/o Budatara, PS Ahore, District Jalore
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sapna Vaishnav as amicus curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/12/2025
1. The instant appeal against the judgment of acquittal has
remained pending before this Court since 12.05.1997. As none
appeared for the actual respondent, this Court requested Ms.
Sapna Vaishnav, learned counsel, to assist the Court. The reader
was directed to supply the complete record to her for perusal of
the legal and factual matrix.
2. Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, learned counsel, is accordingly
appointed as Amicus Curiae under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. Her honorarium shall
be disbursed by the RSLSA as per the applicable norms. After
examining the record in the Court itself, arguments of both sides
were heard.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajesh Bhati, assisted by Mr.
Ravindra Singh Bhati, appeared on behalf of the State, while
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 02:46:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52190] (2 of 5) [CRLA-3/1998]
learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Sapna Vaishnav advanced submissions
supporting the defence.
4. Bereft of prolix details, the succinct facts are that on
07.08.1996, PW-1 Sesha Ram lodged a written report (Ex. P-2)
alleging that his daughter was assaulted and an attempt was
made to rape her by one Hukiya S/o Paala Ji. The allegations
included forceful pushing of the girl, an attempt to ravish her, and
acts of biting and pressing her neck. After investigation, however,
the respondent Laaliya S/o Bala Ji Meena was arrested and
charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 341, 376/511 IPC.
Upon cognizance, the matter was committed to the trial court,
where charges under Sections 341, 376/511 IPC were framed.
Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence and examination of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court, by
judgment dated 04.02.1997, acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved
thereby, the State preferred the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the State argued that the trial court
failed to properly appreciate material evidence and laid undue
emphasis on minor discrepancies in the testimony of rustic and
illiterate witnesses. It was urged that the prosecution had duly
proved its case and the judgment of acquittal deserved reversal.
6. In contraposition, learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
contended that the prosecution case suffered from grave
infirmities and foundational inconsistencies. It was urged that the
respondent's name does not appear in the FIR, and no cogent
explanation exists as to how the originally named accused,
Hukiya, disappeared from the narrative and the respondent was
suddenly introduced as the offender. PW-2 Pema categorically
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 02:46:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52190] (3 of 5) [CRLA-3/1998]
admitted that he did not see the face of the culprit. Though
allegations of biting and forceful assault were made, the medical
evidence of PW-4 does not lend any support to those assertions.
Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
7. I have minutely considered the rival submissions,
meticulously examined the ocular and medical evidence, and
scrutinised the exhibited documents. Indeed, the respondent's
name is conspicuously absent from the FIR. The unexplained
substitution of the accused, a shift from Hukiya to the present
respondent does not inspire confidence. The admission of PW-2
that he did not see the assailant's face further fortifies the doubt.
The contradictions between ocular and medical evidence raise
serious suspicion about the prosecution story. The learned trial
court has dealt with the evidence in a careful and reasoned
manner and assigned sound reasons for acquitting the accused. I
find no ground warranting interference.
8. It is nigh well-settled that presumption of innocence is a
fundamental shield available to every accused, and such
presumption stands reinforced when a competent court records an
acquittal after due appreciation of evidence. An appellate court
must exercise great circumspection and restraint before unsettling
a reasoned acquittal. Unless the judgment is shown to be
perverse, founded on total misreading of evidence, or in disregard
of material on record, interference is unwarranted. Even where
two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the
accused must prevail. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 02:46:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52190] (4 of 5) [CRLA-3/1998]
1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024, has reiterated these well-
accepted principles. Para 36 of the judgment, which encapsulates
the guiding norms for appeals against acquittal, deserves
reproduction as under:-
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based
on the promise that no innocent shall be
condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the
jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended
to prevent any failure of justice. The principles
which come into play while deciding an appeal from
acquittal could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a
ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence,
finds that two views are possible, the one in favour
of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally
plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view
shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of
evidence, it must specifically address all the
reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to
conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate
an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the
decision of the Trial Court.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a thorough
scrutiny of the entire record, I find no reason whatsoever to
unsettle the well-considered finding of acquittal recorded by the
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 02:46:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52190] (5 of 5) [CRLA-3/1998]
learned trial Judge after an anxious and judicious evaluation of
the evidence on record.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and
stands dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.1997
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case No.
54/1996, is hereby affirmed.
11. The accused-respondent shall not be required to surrender
or appear before this Court. If any coercive process has been
issued, the same shall stand recalled forthwith. The bail bonds
furnished by the respondent shall also stand discharged.
12. Let the record of the case be remitted to the court
concerned forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
21-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 02:46:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
