Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Kamla vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:10171) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10171]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 676/2006
Smt. Kamla W/o Bhagwana Ram, by caste Brahmin, R/o Tarnau
Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Nath Mal S/o Shanker Lal,
3. Bajrang Lal S/o Nath Mal,
4. Satay Narayan S/o Madan Lal,
5. Raja Ram S/o Nath Mal,
All R/o Tarnau Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
19/02/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 12.04.2006, passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.52/2005 whereby
the learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents
No.2 to 5 from the offences under Sections 307, 325 and 326 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2005, the
petitioner/complainant lodged a report to the effect that on
14.07.2005 she alongwith her husband Bhagwana Ram, her sister-
in-law Geeta and her son Padam Ram was working in the field. At
about 3 P.M. Nathu Ram, Bhanwar Lal, Raja Ram, Puna Ram,
Bajrang Lal, Suresh, Samu, Sayari and Padma came on a tractor
and trespass their filed and when they tried to resist them then
they beating by Farshi, axe and lathi, due which they sustained
[2025:RJ-JD:10171] (2 of 4) [CRLR-676/2006]
grievous injuries. On the basis of the said report, Police registered
a case against the accused-respondents and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court framed
the charges. The accused-respondents denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. Thereafter, statements of
the accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
In defence, he examined one witness and exhibited certain
documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 12.04.2006 acquitted the accused-
respondents from offences under Sections 307, 325 & 326 IPC.
Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of accused-
respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents from offence under Sections 307, 325 & 326
IPC. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court
has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter
in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections
307, 325 & 326 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:10171] (3 of 4) [CRLR-676/2006]
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-respondents beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 307, 325 & 326 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 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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:10171] (4 of 4) [CRLR-676/2006]
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 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.
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 judgment under challenge.
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
20-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
