Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radhmani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9775) on 18 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:9775]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1118/2022
Radhmani W/o Prabhakaran Pilley, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Ward No. 23, Near Gaushala, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ram Lal S/o Lichhi Ram, R/o Near Jama Masjid, Nohar
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
Mr. Chandrasen Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/02/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 09.06.2022, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal
No.67/2016 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 08.07.2016, passed by
the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No.1421/2014, whereby the learned
trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the on 21.12.2005, petitioner/
complainant filed a complaint before the concerned court with the
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1118/2022]
allegation that the accused-respondent No.2 had committed
forgery with her. The said complaint was sent to the concerned
Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which, Police
registered a case against the accused-respondent No.2 under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The
accused respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 6 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 08.07.2016 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 09.06.2022. Hence
this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned
courts below did not consider the evidence and other aspects of
the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1118/2022]
acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned
judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for
aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer
made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
learned courts below have rightly acquitted the respondent No.2
after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on
record. The judgments of the courts below are just and proper and
warrant no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the trial court as
well as appellate court, it appears that the learned courts below
while passing the impugned judgments have considered each and
every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence
produced before them 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 No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus,
the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
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 judgments under
challenge. The orders passed by the learned courts below are
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1118/2022]
detailed and reasoned orders and the same do 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1118/2022]
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 Courts 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
interference can be made by this Court in the judgments under
challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
141-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
