Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Konu Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11069) on 25 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11069]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1447/2024
Konu Devi W/o Shankarla, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Bija Tehsil
Rohat Dist. Pali (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. ML Meghwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
25/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act has
been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated
07.02.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.19/2018 whereby
the learned Judge acquitted the accused persons namely Radha &
Rekha from the offences under Sections 452, 323/34 IPC and
Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
20.11.2017, complainant/appellant submitted a written report at
Police Station Rohat to the effect that on 15.11.2017 when she
was at her home, the accused persons namely Radha & Rekha
came and assaulted her while using caste oriented language. On
the said report, Police registered a case against the accused
persons and started investigation.
[2025:RJ-JD:11069] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1447/2024]
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused persons. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as six witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2024 acquitted the accused
persons from offences under Sections 452, 323/34 IPC and
Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant argued that
the learned court below has committed grave error in acquitting
the accused persons from offences under Sections 452, 323/34
IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, despite the fact that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record
against the accused persons for commission of the offences. But,
the court below did not consider evidence as well as statements of
the witnesses in its right perspective and acquitted the accused
persons. Thus, it is prayed that the accused persons may be
convicted for offences under Sections 452, 323/34 IPC and
Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the judgment of the trial court and also
gone through the entire record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
[2025:RJ-JD:11069] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1447/2024]
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 persons beyond all reasonable doubts
and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons
namely Radha and Rekha from offences under Sections 452,
323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, 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."
[2025:RJ-JD:11069] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1447/2024]
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal
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 against acquittal except that while
dealing with an appeal 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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant 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.
Hence, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the
same is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
21-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
