Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radhmani vs State Of Rajasthan-State ... 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. 1122/2022
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-State, Through Pp
2. Hanuman S/o Ram Lal, R/o Ward No. 16, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
3. Vijay S/o Ram Lal, R/o Ward No. 16, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
4. Revatraman S/o Ram Lal, R/o Ward No. 16, 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
Order
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.24/2015 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 17.06.2014, passed by
the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No.356/2013, whereby the learned trial
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1122/2022]
court acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under
Sections 420, 406 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the an FIR was lodged by the
petitioner/complainant for offences under Section 420 & 406 IPC
against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. After thorough
investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondent
Nos.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges under
Sections 420 & 406 IPC. The accused respondent Nos.2 to 4
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 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 17.06.2014 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4,
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 Nos.2 to 4 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 Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 420 &
406 IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in
acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned
[2025:RJ-JD:9775] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1122/2022]
judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
learned courts below have rightly acquitted the respondent Nos.2
to 4 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 Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and
thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 420 & 406
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-1122/2022]
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-1122/2022]
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
142-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
