Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Sunil Kumar (2025:Rj-Jd:11791) on 3 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11791]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 137/2023
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Kumhar
Resident Of Ward No.11, Kedar Colony, Chak 7 E Chhoti, Police
Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
03/03/2025
Instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the
appellant- State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal
of the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 363, 366,
376(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment
dated 14.11.2022 passed by learned, Sessions Judge, Special
Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1,
Sriganganagar, in Sessions Case No.82/2021 (CIS Sessions Case
No.86/2021).
Brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2021, mother of
prosecutrix filed a written report at concerned Police Station to the
effect that her daughter (Prosecutrix) aged about 13 years was
forcibly detained by the accused-respondent Sunil Kumar and he
committed rape with her. On the said report, Police registered a
case against the accused-respondent and started investigation.
[2025:RJ-JD:11791] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-137/2023]
During the course of trial, prosecutrix has been examined
before the trial court as PW-1 and her mother has been examined
before the trial court as PW-2 and both turned hostile and did not
supported the prosecution story. Thus, the further proceedings for
recording statements of other witnesses were closed. Thereafter,
statement of accused respondent was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 14.11.2022 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal leave
to appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant- State submits
that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 363, 366,
376(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. 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-respondent ought to have
been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 363,
366, 376(1) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits
prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) turned hostile and did
not support the story of prosecution. Thus, the judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial court is just and proper and does not
warrant any interference from this Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:11791] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-137/2023]
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial court.
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 beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent from offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC
and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:11791] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-137/2023]
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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant- State 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.
Hence, the present criminal leave to appeal has no substance
and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
112-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
