Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balu Singh vs Devi Singh And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:10133) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10133]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 473/2006
Balu Singh S/o Pahad Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Village
Bagoria, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Devi Singh S/o Himmat Singh, by caste Ravana Rajput,
2. Deva Ram S/o Khiya Ram, by caste Jat,
3. Ramniwas S/o Jala Ram, by caste Jat,
All R/o Village Bagoria, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
4. The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampatti Godara
Mr. Mukesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Rathore, for respondents
No.1 to 3
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 14.12.2004, passed by learned Addl. Sessons
Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, in Session Case No.36/2004,
whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent
Nos.1 to 3 from the offence punishable under Section 341, 323,
323/34, 324, 324/34, 307, 307/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 07.04.2003, the petitioner/
complainant gave a written report to the effect that on 06.04.2003
respondent No.1-Devi Singh came with a tractor of Govind Singh
[2025:RJ-JD:10133] (2 of 5) [CRLR-473/2006]
and stopped the same on the way. Upon which his son Jaswant
Singh objected then some quarrel took place between them and
Devi Singh beat his son Jaswant Singh, due to which he sustained
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 17
witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, witness Shrawan Singh was
examined as DW/1.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 14.12.2004 acquitted the accused-
respondents from offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 324,
324/34, 307, 307/34 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 341, 323,
323/34, 324, 324/34, 307, 307/34 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
[2025:RJ-JD:10133] (3 of 5) [CRLR-473/2006]
and sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 324,
324/34, 307, 307/34 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.
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 341, 323, 323/34, 324,
324/34, 307, 307/34 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",
[2025:RJ-JD:10133] (4 of 5) [CRLR-473/2006]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:10133] (5 of 5) [CRLR-473/2006]
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
16-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
