Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jatano vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14172) on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14172]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1651/2024
Smt. Jatano W/o Sh. Poonama Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Balmiki Colony, Jaisalmer, (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kalu Singh S/o Durg Singh, R/o Digga, Ps Mohangarh,
Dist. Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.L. Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/03/2025
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 447
IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated
06.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases
Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.32/2020 while granting the benefit
of doubt.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant
Smt. Jatano lodged an FIR before the Police Station Jaisalmer,
stating therein that her husband allotted a land and she resided
on the said land. Accused Kalu Singh alongwith Punam Singh
hatched a criminal conspiracy they made the complainant's
husband drink the alcohol and they took the documents of the
[2025:RJ-JD:14172] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024]
said land and also signed some papers by her husband and
thereafter they took KCC loan on that land by using the political
power, they grabbed her land illegally.
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 for offence
under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act.
Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-
respondents and framed the charges for offence under Sections
447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act. The accused-
respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten,
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 06.05.2024 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Section 447 IPC and Section
3(1)(f)(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 Section 447 IPC and
Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act while granting the benefit of
doubt. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14172] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024]
No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offences
under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(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.
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.
The incident took place in the year 2019. 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 Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(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
[2025:RJ-JD:14172] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024]
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."
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
judgment under challenge.
[2025:RJ-JD:14172] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
13-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
