Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Seema vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:4413) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:4413]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 749/2006
Smt. Seema W/o Poonam Chand & D/o Ganesh Mal R/o. Bidasar
at present residing at Chhapar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Bhikam Chand S/o Kanahiya Lal, R/o Ladhu, District Nagaur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, Asst.G.A.
For Complainant : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/01/2025
1. By way of filing the instant revision criminal petition, the
petitioner has made challenge to the judgment dated
22.06.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.27/2005,
whereby the accused respondent Bhikam Chand was
acquitted from the charges.
2. The petitioner happens to be victim of the case.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case that a complaint (Ex.P3)
was submitted on 17.01.2001 alleging inter alia that on
12.09.2000 in broad day light, while she was going along
with her sister-in-law to meet her brother Sanwarmal (PW-
7), the accused met her in the midway and asked them to
sit in his vehicle. She states that relying upon the accused,
[2025:RJ-JD:4413] (2 of 4) [CRLR-749/2006]
she embarked in the Jeep. She alleged that in the midway,
the jeep was stopped and she was subjected to rape on the
point of knife. She further alleges that whereafter she was
taken to Jodhpur through the same Jeep and wherefrom they
went to Ahmedabad by train. In Ahemdabad, she was taken
to a home and stayed with the accused until 05.01.2001.
4. The matter was investigated and the accused respondent
Bhikham Chand was charge-sheeted for committing an
offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence and then transferred the
matter to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court
framed the charges against him for the offence under
Sections 376 and 366 of the IPC and commenced the trial.
As many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution and whereafter the accused was examined under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocence.
5. One witness Luna Ram (DW-1) was examined in the defence.
Whereafter hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
learned trial court acquitted the accused from the charges.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the judgment under assail as well as record of the
case.
7. A perusal of the judgment revealing that the learned trial
Judge has very meticulously examined the material brought
on record and a threadbare discussion of the testimony of
the prosecutrix was made and whereafter he reached on the
conclusion that the victim was not a reliable witness.
[2025:RJ-JD:4413] (3 of 4) [CRLR-749/2006]
8. I have also gone through her statement so also her
statement recorded during investigation which was tendered
into evidence as Ex.D1.
9. A glimpse over Ex.D1 and the story narrated by her during
the trial reveals that there is direct conflict between these
two. She has been belied on several material aspects. There
are significant contradictions and discrepancies in her
testimony. The fact that she stayed with the petitioner for
long three months and even lived together under a roof as a
husband and wife in a metro city, yet never raised a hue and
cry or sought assistance from anyone to release herself from
the clutches, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that she
may have been a consenting party.
10. Additionally, the fact that she was a major grown up lady
and was married also to some one else further persuading
this court to believe that she went with the petitioner at her
own accord without there being any fear or threat. Her use
of public transport, standing in line to buy a ticket, and
visiting public places also persuades this Court to conclude
that the story set out in the charge-sheet is not credible.
11. The Court of first instance has minutely gone through her
statement and the other materials and so also this Court has
undertaken the same task. Indeed, no error has been
committed by the learned trial judge in acquitting the
accused.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not succeeded in
pointing out a single incriminating material based on which a
well-reasoned judgment of acquittal can be converted into a
[2025:RJ-JD:4413] (4 of 4) [CRLR-749/2006]
judgment of conviction. It is well nigh settled principles of
law that in criminal matters, the burden always lies upon the
prosecution and the position of the accused is nothing but
like a mute spectator. The accused is not required to disclose
anything. It is indeed incumbent upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubts. In
my view, the prosecution has miserably being failed to
establish the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. The another
aspects of the case would be that it is also a well nigh settled
principles of law that the appellate court should show
reluctance and should be slow in making interference in a
well reasoned judgment of acquittal unless it is observed
that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non
consideration of the material brought on record or the
judgment of acquittal is based on misappreciation of
evidence or neglecting the merits of the case. After minutely
going through the material, this court feels that no error has
been committed by the learned trial Judge therefore,
interference is not required. There is no force in the petition
and the same deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed.
14. Record be sent back.
15. The finding of learned trial judge is further affirmed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Ashutosh-7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
