Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiyalal vs Champalal (2025:Rj-Jd:14473) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14473]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 99/2021
Kanhaiyalal S/o Sh. Madhulal Gurjar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Guvardi, Police Station Sadar, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Champalal S/o Madhu Gurjar, R/o Guvardi, Police Station
Sadar, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. Nanda S/o Champa Gurjar, R/o Guvardi, Police Station
Sadar, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).
3. Narayan S/o Nanda Gurjar, R/o Guvardi, Police Station
Sadar, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).
4. Bheru S/o Nanda Gurjar, R/o Guvardi, Police Station
Sadar, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).
5. State, Through Pp, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/03/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal
No.124/2019 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 22.11.2016, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal
Case No.92/2008 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
[2025:RJ-JD:14473] (2 of 5) [CRLR-99/2021]
respondents No.1 to 4 from offence under Sections 447 & 379/34
of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant
filed a complaint against accused persons including the
respondents No.1 to 4, before the concerned court for offence
under Sections 447 & 379/34 of IPC.
3. The trial court framed the charges against the accused-
respondents No.1 to 4 for offence under Section 447 & 379/34
IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as four witnesses. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the
accused-respondents No.1 to 4 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for
which they denied the same. In defence, one witness was
examined and two documents were exhibited.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.11.2016 acquitted the accused-
respondents No.1 to 4 for offence under Sections 447 & 379/34
IPC.
6. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents No.1 to 4,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
20.11.2019. Hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondents No.1 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the
learned courts below did not consider the evidence and other
aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the
accused-respondents No.1 to 4 for offence under Sections 447 &
[2025:RJ-JD:14473] (3 of 5) [CRLR-99/2021]
379/34 IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error
in acquitting the accused-respondents No.1 to 4. Thus, the
impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the
accused-respondents No.1 to 4 ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for aforesaid offences.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and
perused the impugned judgments as well as considered the
material available on record.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgments of the trial court as
well as appellate court, 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 them in its right perspective. The prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents No.1 to 4
beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned courts below
have rightly acquitted the accused-respondents No.1 to 4 from
offence under Sections 447 & 379/34 IPC.
10. 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
material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the
[2025:RJ-JD:14473] (4 of 5) [CRLR-99/2021]
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
11. 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."
12. 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.
13. 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 orders passed by the learned courts below are
[2025:RJ-JD:14473] (5 of 5) [CRLR-99/2021]
detailed and reasoned orders and the same do not warrant any
interference from this Court.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
15. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
168-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
