Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sushila vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10587) on 21 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10587]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 248/2025
Sushila W/o Manohar Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o In Front Of
Mahamandir Railway Station, Indira Colony, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Jay Singh, R/o Jhalamaliya, P.s.
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur At Present Residing At
Khasra No.33, Roopnagar, Nandri, P.s. Banar, District
Jodhpur.
3. Hadman Singh Khangta S/o Dhan Singh, R/o Plot No.1,
Bjs, Near Rto Office, P.s. Mahamandir, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/02/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 13.11.2024, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metro in Cr. Appeal No.36/2023
(265/2023) whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 09.06.2023, passed by
the learned Sr. Civil Judge & Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, No.5, Jodhpur Metro in Original Cr. Case No.21/2016
(4105/2016), whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 379, 447 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:10587] (2 of 5) [CRLR-248/2025]
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant
filed a complaint before the concerned court with the allegation
that the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 are forcefully trying to
encroach over the plots of the petitioner. On the said complaint,
an FIR was registered by the Police against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 under Sections 379, 447 IPC and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent Nos.2 & 3. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges under Sections 379, 447 IPC. The
accused respondent Nos.2 & 3 denied the charges and claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 09.06.2023 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 379, 447 IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
13.11.2024. Hence this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 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
[2025:RJ-JD:10587] (3 of 5) [CRLR-248/2025]
accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 379,
447 IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in
acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3. Thus, the impugned
judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for aforesaid offences.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as well
as learned AAG 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 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and
thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 379, 447 IPC.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:10587] (4 of 5) [CRLR-248/2025]
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 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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
[2025:RJ-JD:10587] (5 of 5) [CRLR-248/2025]
interference can be made by this Court in the judgments under
challenge. The orders passed by the learned courts below are
detailed and reasoned orders and the same do not warrant any
interference from this Court.
Hence, the present criminal revision petition has no
substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
