Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14455) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14455]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1438/2024
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Satyanaryan, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 7-I-12
And 13, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Prakash S/o Champalal, R/o 7-I-51 And 52, Kuri
Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
3. Santosh W/o Prakash, R/o 7-I-51 And 52, Kuri Bhagtasani
Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Joshi with
Mr. Kapil Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumapwat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
18/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
(442 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against
the judgment dated 31.07.2024, passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Cr. Appeal No.193/2019
whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment dated 07.02.2019, passed by the learned
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in
Cr. Case No.850/2016, whereby the learned trial court acquitted
the respondents No.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-complainant and
accused respondent Prakash have good relations and on
[2025:RJ-JD:14455] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1438/2024]
24.04.2007 petitioner purchased five stamps and the same were
lost in the Court premises but no complaint has been lodged in
this regard. On 04.08.2011 petitioner complainant came to know
that accused Prakash has stolen the said stamps and with the help
of respondent No.3 they misused the same by tampering the
documents. The concerned court sent the said complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation before the concerned
Police Station. Upon which, the concerned Police Station registered
the FIR and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges against the accused-respondents No.2 &
3 for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, who
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondents were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.02.2019 acquitted the accused-
respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-
B of IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2024.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that the FSL report, which incriminates the accused
[2025:RJ-JD:14455] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1438/2024]
respondent, has been duly presented. Despite this submission of
this report and the subsequent arrest of the respondents, have
inexplicably acquitted them. Counsel further submits that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondents 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 for offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. The learned
courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve to
be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned
courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-respondents after
due appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the impugned judgments
are just and proper warranting no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
From a bare perusal of the record it is found that the
prosecution's case against the accused-respodnents is
fundamentally undermined by a lack of sufficient evidence,
notably due to the absence of specimen signatures and the failure
to compare the complainant's signature on the cancellation deed.
The allegations of forgery remain un-investigated, and there exists
no evidence linking the non-judicial stamp to the case, further
eroding the prosecution's position. Consequently, the court
[2025:RJ-JD:14455] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1438/2024]
determines that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below,
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. There are major contradictions,
omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses.
Thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:14455] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1438/2024]
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 judgments under
challenge. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed
and reasoned order and thus, this court is not inclined to interfere
in the concurrent findings given by the courts below.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the courts below, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
240-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
