Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Salim Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9555) on 17 February, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:9555]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1294/2022

Salim Khan S/o Shri Shergul Khan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Kotadi, P.s. Arnod, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Ambika Pratap Singh D/o Shri Lokendra Singh, R/o
         Kotadi, P.s. Arnod, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
3.       Devenera Singh S/o Shri Chetan Singh, R/o Kotadi, P.s.
         Arnod, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
4.       Dhanpal Singh S/o Shri Mangu Singh, R/o Kotadi, P.s.
         Arnod, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
                                Mr. OP Choudhary
                                Mr. RS Chundawat



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

17/02/2025

Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the

judgment dated 26.07.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Pratapgarh in Cr. Appeal No.20/2020 whereby the learned

appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from

the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC while setting aside the

judgment dated 18.12.2019, passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arnod, District Pratapgarh in Cr. Regular

Case No.23/2014.

[2025:RJ-JD:9555] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1294/2022]

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint

filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.281/2013 was

registered at Police Station Arnod, District Pratapgarh under

Section 143, 341, 323, 504 IPC with the allegation that the

accused-respondents No.2 to 4 assaulted the

petitioner/complainant and his family members.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan

against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial

court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to

4 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC. They denied the

charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11

witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,

statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded

under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 convicted the accused-

respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 341, 323 and

gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act.

Aggrieved by their conviction, the accused-respondents No.2

to 4 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which

came to be allowed vide judgment dated 26.07.2022 and the

appellate court while setting aside the order of conviction passed

by the trial court, acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 4

from the alleged offences. Hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has

submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-

[2025:RJ-JD:9555] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1294/2022]

respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the

learned appellate court did not consider the evidence and other

aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the

accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 341 &

323 IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in

acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 despite the finding

of conviction recorded by the trial court. Thus, the impugned

judgment passed by the appellate court deserves to be quashed

and set aside and judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court

may be upheld.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that

the learned appellate court has considered each and every aspect

of the matter and has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents

from the aforesaid offences. The impugned judgment of the

appellate court is just and proper and does not warrant any

interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment passed by the appellate court as well as order

of the trial court and considered the material available on record.

On perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court,

it appears that the learned appellate court while passing the

impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the

matter and also considered the findings of the trial court as well as

evidence produced before the trial court 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 4 beyond all

reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate court has

[2025:RJ-JD:9555] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1294/2022]

rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence

under Section 341, 323 IPC.

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 judgment passed by the learned appellate court is

detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any

interference from this Court.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:9555] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1294/2022]

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 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 below 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