Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4221) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4221]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 893/2024
Santosh W/o Rajesh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kherodiwada,
Thana Surajpole, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Lalchand S/o Manoharlal, R/o 126 Kherodiwada, Thana
Surajpole, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Kamlesh S/o Badrilal, R/o Basedi Kundal Thana Badi
Sadari, Dist. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Gaurav Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/01/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-
complainant under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act against the acquittal
of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offences under Sections
455, 354, 354C, 354D, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Udaipur in
Special Sessions Case No.09/2021.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant
Santosh submitted a complaint before the concerned court stating
therein that on 22.08.2020, when she was alone in the house, the
accused-respondents unlawfully entered in the house and starting
[2025:RJ-JD:4221] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-893/2024]
abusing her with caste oriented language and also tried to outrage
her modesty.
On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the
accused-respondents and after usual investigation, the police filed
challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial
court took cognizance against the accused-respondents and
framed the charges for offence under Sections 427, 354, 354(C),
354(D), 455 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act. The accused-respondents denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 455, 354, 354C, 354D,
427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents from offence under Sections 455, 354, 354C,
354D, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act. 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-respondents ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections
[2025:RJ-JD:4221] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-893/2024]
455, 354, 354C, 354D, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just
and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court
and prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 Nos.2 & 3 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections
455, 354, 354C, 354D, 427 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Gu)(w)(ii), 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST Act.
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:4221] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-893/2024]
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."
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. Learned counsel for 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:4221] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-893/2024]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
107-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
