Narayan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13530)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8663 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8663 Raj
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13530) on 11 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:13530]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 34/2020

Narayan S/o Shri Khemaji, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Meena, R/o
Rawatpur, Police Station Kurabad, District Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       State, Through Pp
2.       Nathu Lal S/o Kheta Dangi, Resident Of Rawatpur, Police
         Station Kurabad, District Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

11/03/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-

complainant under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act against the acquittal

of the accused-respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 3(1)

(g) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases

Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.28/2017.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant

Narayan lodged an FIR before the Police Station Kurabad, stating

therein that he purchased a land from Smt. Logri by way of

registered sale deed dated 20.12.2016 and accordingly after

mutation his name was entered and he gave the said land for

cultivation to accused Nathu Lal and accused Nathu Lal while

constructing the house on the said land tried to take illegal

possession of the said land.

[2025:RJ-JD:13530] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-34/2020]

On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the

accused-respondent No.2 and after usual investigation, the police

filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the

trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondents and

framed the charges for offence under Sections 3(1)(g) of SC/ST

Act. The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed

trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine

witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statements of 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 10.10.2019 acquitted the accused-

respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 3(1)(g) of SC/ST

Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that

the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the

accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 3(1)(g) of

SC/ST Act. 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

No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offences

under Sections 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of

acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and

does not warrant any interference from this Court and prays for

dismissal of the criminal appeal.

[2025:RJ-JD:13530] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-34/2020]

Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 No.2 beyond all

reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted

the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 3(1)(g)

of SC/ST Act.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant 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.

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.

[2025:RJ-JD:13530] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-34/2020]

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

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. Learned counsel for the

appellant 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