Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jubeda vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:12734) on 6 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12734]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1119/2015
Jubeda W/o Gulam Dasgeer S/o Mohd. Hanif, by caste Kheradi
Muslim, R/o Boharwas Mandar, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi,
presently R/o Modiyo Ki Gali, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District
Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Gulab Dastgeer S/o Abdur Rahman, B/c Kheradi Muslim, R/o
Boharwas Mandar, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Bharat Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
12.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jaitaran, District Pali in Cr. Appeal No.33/2012, by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld
the judgment dated 25.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali in Cr. Regular Case
No.140/2008 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 498-A
& 406 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:12734] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1119/2015]
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant
filed a complaint before the concerned court against the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 IPC,
which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station
Jaitaran for investigation. Upon receiving the complaint, the Police
registered an FIR against the accused-respondent No.2 and
started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections
498-A, 406 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges.
The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.04.2012 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2015.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 498-A,
406 IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence against the
accused-respondent No.2 for commission of the alleged offence.
[2025:RJ-JD:12734] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1119/2015]
While passing the impugned judgments, the learned courts below
have not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter
in its right perspective. 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 offence under Sections
498-A, 406 IPC.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits
that the learned courts below have passed detailed and reasoned
orders of acquittal, which require no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments
passed by the courts below.
On perusal of the impugned judgments, 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 it in 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
Sections 498A & 406 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:
[2025:RJ-JD:12734] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1119/2015]
"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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:12734] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1119/2015]
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 learned courts below have rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from the offences. The orders passed by
the learned courts below are detailed and reasoned orders and the
same do 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 courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
105-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
