Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Sharda vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11987) on 3 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:11987]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 185/2024

Smt.     Sharda      W/o    Lekhraj,       Aged       About       36    Years,   R/o
Gajsinghpura Police Station Asop District Jodhpur
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Lekhraj     S/o   Ashok       Kumar,        R/o      East     Patel   Nagar
         Ganeshpura Ratanada Jodhpur
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :     Smt. Sonu Manawat, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

03/03/2025

Instant criminal revision petition has filed under Section 397

& 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal Appeal No.

54/2022 whereby, the appellate Court upheld the judgment dated

28.06.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bhopalgarh, District

Jodhpur acquitting the respondent accused from the offence under

Section 498A, 406, 323 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner

filed a complaint against the respondent accused before the

learned Judicial Magistrate stating therein that her marriage with

the respondent no.2 took place on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites

and sufficient dowry was given to the respondent according to

their capacity. It was stated that just after two months of

[2025:RJ-JD:11987] (2 of 5) [CRLR-185/2024]

marriage, the accused respondent started harassing the

complainant for more dowry. Out of the wedlock, one son Manish

was born. The father of petitioner requested the accused

respondent to bring her to matrimonial home but the accused

refused to do so and insisted to give divorce unless their demands

are met.

The complaint was sent by the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar city

to the Police station, Bhopalgarh and FIR No. 157/2022 was

lodged for offence under Section 498A, 406, 323 IPC. The police

after due investigation, filed challan against the respondent no.2

for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. Thereafter,

charges of the case were framed against the respondent no.2 for

aforesaid offences. The accused respondent no.2 denied the

charges and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined ten

witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement

of accused respondent no.2 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded, who exhibited two documents in his defence.

After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the

respondent no.2 from the offences vide its judgment dated

28.06.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal

before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District. The

learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment dated 28.06.2022

and dismissed the appeal of petitioner vide judgment dated

07.10.2023. Hence, this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts

[2025:RJ-JD:11987] (3 of 5) [CRLR-185/2024]

below without going through the entire record and evidence

acquitted the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the

prosecution witnesses complainant PW/1 Sharda and even the

aunt of respondent no.2 PW/4 Gomati have stated that the

complainant was subjected to cruelty for dowry. However, the trial

court acquitted the respondents on the basis of minor

contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. It is argued that

the learned trial court ignored the evidence brought on record

which resulted into erroneous acquittal of the accused respondent

no.2. Thus the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set

aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for

passing fresh order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the

material available on record.

From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the

learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondent no.2

has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case against the respondent for offence under Section

498A, 406 and 323 IPC inasmuch there is no specific averment as

to when and how much dowry/articles were demanded by the

respondent no.2. On the contrary, the complainant has admitted

that the dowry was given by her father on his own accord and no

demand was made by the respondent no.2. Further there is no

specific details with regard to the injuries caused to her nor there

is any medical corroboration with regard to any beating. In the

opinion of this Court, the findings given by the Courts below are

[2025:RJ-JD:11987] (4 of 5) [CRLR-185/2024]

perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of

acquittal by the trial Court.

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:--

"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."

[2025:RJ-JD:11987] (5 of 5) [CRLR-185/2024]

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 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