Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vidyadevi vs Narayan Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:4476) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4476]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 64/2024
Vidyadevi W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 54 Years, D/o Fateh
Singh, B/c Rawat, R/o Kalaliya, P.s. Sendada, District Pali Now
District Beawar (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Narayan Singh S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 68 Years, B/c
Rawat, R/o Bhojpura, Narbad Kheda, P.s. Beawar Sadar,
District Ajmer Now District Beawar (Raj)
2. Ghisi Devi W/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, B/c
Rawat, R/o Bhojpura, Narbad Kheda, P.s. Beawar Sadar,
District Ajmer Now District Beawar (Raj)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Mirdha
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/01/2025
Instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant-
complainant under Section 378/372 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of
the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 494, 494/114
IPC vide judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Bar, Pali in Regular Cr. Case No.455/2006 (CIS
No.256/2016).
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the
appellant-complainant before the concerned Court to the effect that
in the year 1990, her marriage was solemnized with the accused-
respondent No.1 and from their wedlock, two children were born.
After three years of marriage, the accused-respondent No.1 started
harassing the appellant mentally and physically for dowry.
[2025:RJ-JD:4476] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-64/2024]
Subsequently, the accused-respondent No.1 ousted the appellant
from her matrimonial home. It was further alleged that the accused-
respondent No.1 without giving divorce to the appellant, solemnized
second marriage with accused-respondent No.2.
On the said complaint, after examining the complainant,
Himmat Singh and Laxman Singh under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C.,
the trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent No.1
for offence under Section 494 IPC and against accused-respondent
No.2 for offence under Section 494/114 IPC. Thereafter, the trial
court framed charges separately against the accused-respondents.
They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined three
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements
of accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, the accused-respondents produced some documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 18.08.2023 acquitted the accused-
respondents from the aforesaid offences. 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 494, 494/114 IPC.
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 offence under Sections 494,
494/114 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:4476] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-64/2024]
Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the
trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from
offence under Sections 494, 494/114 IPC.
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 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:--
[2025:RJ-JD:4476] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-64/2024]
"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.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal
leave to appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
53-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
