Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Uma Ram vs State And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:10127) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10127]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 361/2007
Una Ram S/o Shri Bhaga Ji, by caste Meghwal, R/o Dhawali,
Tehsil Revdar, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Ugma Ram S/o Shri Bhigha Ji, By caste Meghwal, R/o
Dhawali, T.S. Revdar, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
Mr. Jitendra Singh
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 01.06.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Sirohi in Cr. Appeal No.03/2005 whereby the learned appellate
court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offences
under Sections 452, 325 and 323 IPC while setting aside the
judgment dated 15.12.2004, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Revdar, District Sirohi in Cr. Regular Case
No.263/1999.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint
filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.112/1999 was
registered at Police Station Revdar, District Sirohi under Section
452 and 323 IPC with the allegation that the accused-respondent
[2025:RJ-JD:10127] (2 of 5) [CRLR-361/2007]
beaten the petitioner Una Ram by Kudla after making the trespass
in the house and due to which petitioner received several injuries.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges against the accused-respondent No.2 for
offence under Sections 452, 323 and 325 IPC. They denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defense, three witnesses were examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 15.12.2004 convicted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 452, 323 and 325 IPC.
Aggrieved by their conviction, the accused-respondent No.2
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be allowed vide judgment dated 01.06.2005 and the
appellate court while setting aside the order of conviction passed
by the trial court, acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the
alleged offences. 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
appellate court 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 452, 323 and 325 IPC.
The learned court below has committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent No.2 despite the finding of conviction
[2025:RJ-JD:10127] (3 of 5) [CRLR-361/2007]
recorded by the trial court. Thus, the impugned judgment passed
by the appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside and
judgment of conviction passed by the trial court may be upheld.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the
counsel for the petitioner-complainant.
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 No.2 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate court has
rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under
Section 452, 325 and 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
[2025:RJ-JD:10127] (4 of 5) [CRLR-361/2007]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:10127] (5 of 5) [CRLR-361/2007]
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.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
27-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
