Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devki Devi vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:28960) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:28960]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 435/2008

Devki Devi W/o Prakash Harizan, Aged about 54 years, by caste
Chamar, R/o Ward No.29, Rajgarh, District Churu.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Bhimraj S/o Lichman Ram, by caste Mali,
3. Deepchand S/o Surjaram, by caste Nai,
4. Nihal Singh S/o Loonaram, by caste Jat,
5. Amar Singh S/o Harkha Ram, by caste Jat,
6. Mukesh S/o Deepchand, by caste Nai,
7. Murlidhar S/o Ramlal, by caste Kumhar,
   All R/o Rajgarh, District Churu.
                                                                 ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
                                Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
                                Mr. Ankit Ghorela, for respondents
                                No.2 to 7



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

04/07/2025

Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the

judgment dated 29.01.2008, passed by learned Special Judge,

Churu, in Special Sessions Case No.9/2005 whereby the learned

court acquitted the respondents No.2 to 7 from offence under

Sections 147, 447 & 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(v)(x) of SC/ST Act.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant gave a

report while stating that on 04.03.2004 all the respondents

arrived at his premises armed with deadly weapons, with the

[2025:RJ-JD:28960] (2 of 6) [CRLR-435/2008]

apparent intention of trespassing onto his land. It is further

alleged that the respondents also committed theft within the

petitioner's premises. On the basis of said report filed by the

petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.56/2004 was registered at

Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan

against the accused-respondents No.2 to 7. Thereafter, the trial

court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to

7. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined various

witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,

statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 7 were recorded

under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 29.01.2008 acquitted the respondents

No.2 to 7 from the aforesaid offences. Hence this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned trial

court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-

respondents from the aforesaid offences despite the fact that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record

against the accused-respondents for commission of offence. Yet,

the trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter and

acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offence,

which is per se illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned

judgment may be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that

the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of

[2025:RJ-JD:28960] (3 of 6) [CRLR-435/2008]

the matter while passing the impugned judgment. The impugned

judgment of the trial court is just and proper and does not warrant

any interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment passed by the court below and considered the

material available on record.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that

learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the

matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its

right perspective. The prosecution has failed to prove its case

against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts

and thus the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondents from aforesaid offences under IPC as well as under

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:

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:28960] (4 of 6) [CRLR-435/2008]

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."

Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs.

Sanjay Ram Tamta, reported (2025) 2 SCC 159,' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.

[2025:RJ-JD:28960] (5 of 6) [CRLR-435/2008]

7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24:

24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

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.

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