Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Chand vs State And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:2854) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2854]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 421/2005
Amar Chand S/o Shri Sanwar Mal, B/c Meghwal, R/o Thimau
Badi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
2. Pitrapal S/o Shri Mahavir, B/c Jat, R/o Village Thimau Badi,
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lekhraj Singh Chauhan
Mr. Shahin Ali Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/01/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 12.05.2004, passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu in Special Case
No.28/2001, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 323 IPC, Section 40 of Electricity Act and Section
3(1)(X) of SC/St Act.
Brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.2001, the petitioner-
complainant submitted a written report at concerned Police Station
to the effect that on 31.12.2000, at about 5:00 PM, accused
persons namely Mahavir, Pitrapal & Surendra entered in his house
armed with lathies and Barchi and started assaulting him. These
[2025:RJ-JD:2854] (2 of 5) [CRLR-421/2005]
accused persons also disconnected electricity supply of his well
and also abused him with caste oriented language. On this, Police
registered a case against the accused persons and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges. The accused-respondent No.2. denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2
was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 12.05.2004 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding
commission of offence but the learned trial court has not
considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its
right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.2
from the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court has committed
grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. 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 Sections 447, 323 IPC, Section 40 of
Electricity Act and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2
submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and
[2025:RJ-JD:2854] (3 of 5) [CRLR-421/2005]
reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from
this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
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 Sections 447,
323 IPC, Section 40 of Electricity Act and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St
Act.
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.
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:
[2025:RJ-JD:2854] (4 of 5) [CRLR-421/2005]
"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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:2854] (5 of 5) [CRLR-421/2005]
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.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
