Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pardeshi vs State And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:11132) on 25 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11132]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1001/2003
Pardeshi S/o Shyamsunder, B/c Chamar, Aged 45 years, R/o
Sardargarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Hamid Ali S/o Rahim Ali, B/c Musalman, R/o Sardargarh,
Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
25/02/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 06.09.2003, passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case
No.46/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from offences punishable under Section
376/511 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2003, the petitioner/
complainant gave a written report to SHO, PS Suratgarh to the
effect that the accused-respondent No.2 had committed rape with
her grand daughter. On the basis of the said report, Police
registered a case against the accused-respondent No.2 and
started investigation.
[2025:RJ-JD:11132] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1001/2003]
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Section
376/511 IPC & Section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges for offence under Section 376/511 IPC.
The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as five witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 06.09.2003 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Section 376/511 IPC. Hence
this criminal revision against the acquittal of accused-respondent
No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Section 376/511
IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence against the
accused-respondent No.2 for commission of the alleged offence.
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-respondent No.2 ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section
376/511 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:11132] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1001/2003]
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-respondent No.2 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Section 376/511
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
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:11132] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1001/2003]
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.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:11132] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1001/2003]
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
157-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
