Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6040) on 30 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:6040]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 612/2024
Kailash Chandra S/o Bhanwar Lal Pokrana, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Devgarh, Teh Devgarh, Dist Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Narbada W/o Dungar Singh @ Vijay Singh Rawat,
R/o Chhapali (Nagata Ki Guwar), Teh Bheem, Dist
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
30/01/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 27.03.2024, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Cr. Appeal No.46/2018 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment dated 07.02.2018, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devgarh, District Rajsamand in Cr.
Regular Case No.75/2012, whereby the learned trial court
acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under Section 388/34
IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant
filed a report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that
[2025:RJ-JD:6040] (2 of 5) [CRLR-612/2024]
in order to grab money from the complainant, accused-respondent
No.2 Narmada called him at her home, where she and accused
Dungarsingh threatened him to falsely implicate in a case of rape
and for this, accused Dungarsingh captured some pictures of the
complainant with accused respondent No.2 Narmada. The accused
persons were regularly harassing the petitioner for money. The
complainant gave Rs.2,20,000/- and jewellery of Rs.3,67,500/- to
the accused persons. On the said report, Police registered a case
against the accused persons for offences under Sections 384, 388
IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused persons for offence under Sections 384 & 388
IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the
accused persons including respondent No.2 for offence under
Section 388/34 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused persons including the respondent No.2
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2018 acquitted the accused
persons including the respondent No.2 for offence under Section
388/34 IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused persons including
respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned appellate court, which came to be allowed vide judgment
dated 27.03.2024. Hence this revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:6040] (3 of 5) [CRLR-612/2024]
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned
courts below have not considered the evidence and other aspects
of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Section 388/34 IPC. The
learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve
to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the trial court as
well as appellate court, it appears that the learned courts below
while passing the impugned judgments have considered each and
every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence
produced before them 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 learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Section 388/34 IPC.
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 judgments under
challenge. The orders passed by the learned courts below are
[2025:RJ-JD:6040] (4 of 5) [CRLR-612/2024]
detailed and reasoned orders and the same do 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:
"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
[2025:RJ-JD:6040] (5 of 5) [CRLR-612/2024]
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 Courts below 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 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 judgments under
challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
4-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
