Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Phooli Devi vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:12459) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12459]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 634/2006
Phooli Devi W/o Rati Ram Meghwal, R/o Kalyansar, PS Nappasar,
District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Dhanna Ram S/o Hazari Ram,
3. Sunder Lal S/o Dhanna Ram,
4. Vishana Ram S/o Hazari Ram
All B/c Meghwal, R/o Kalyansar, PS Nappasar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 18.03.2004, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Sessions Case
No.309/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offences punishable under
Sections 450, 376, 452, 323/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1998, the petitioner/
complainant gave a report at Police Station to the effect that in
the night at about 10-11 PM, when she was sleeping in the house,
the accused-respondent No.3 Sunder Lal came and tried to
outrage her modesty. On raising hue and cry, the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the petitioner/complainant came and caught
[2025:RJ-JD:12459] (2 of 5) [CRLR-634/2006]
the accused-respondent No.3. On hearing hue and cry, accused-
respondents No.2 & 4 Dhanna Ram and Vishana Ram respectively
came there armed with lathi and other weapons and assaulted the
petitioner/complainant and her mother-in-law and father-in-law.
On the basis of the said report, Police registered a case against
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed the challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial
court framed charges against the accused-respondent No.3 for
offence under Sections 450, 376 IPC and against accused-
respondents No.2 & 4 for offence under Sections 452, 323/34 IPC.
The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-respondents No.2 to 4
produced certain documentary evidence.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 18.03.2004 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 450, 376, 452,
323/34 IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 450,
376, 452, 323/34 IPC, despite the fact that there is ample
evidence against them for commission of the alleged offence.
[2025:RJ-JD:12459] (3 of 5) [CRLR-634/2006]
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 Nos.2 to 4
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 450, 376, 452, 323/34 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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-respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections
450, 376, 452, 323/34 IPC .
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
[2025:RJ-JD:12459] (4 of 5) [CRLR-634/2006]
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
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:12459] (5 of 5) [CRLR-634/2006]
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 facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
23-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
