Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhola Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16323) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16323]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 235/2006
Bhola Ram S/o Bhagga Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Sujandesar, District
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Dhan Raj S/o Radha Kishan
3. Lakhu Ram S/o Radha Kishan
4. Sampat Lal S/o Radha Kishan
5. Aasoo Ram S/o Sampat Ram
All B/c Mali, R/o Sujandesar, PS Gangasahar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BS Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
27/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 16.12.2005, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case
No.259/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 5 from the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 323/34, 324/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 30.09.1996, the petitioner-
complainant gave a parcha bayan to the Police at PBM Hospital,
Bikaner to the effect that the accused respondents No.2 to 5
assaulted him. On the basis of the parcha bayan, Police registered
[2025:RJ-JD:16323] (2 of 4) [CRLR-235/2006]
a case against the accused respondents No.2 to 5 and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 5. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondent
Nos.2 to 5 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 16.12.2005 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 5 regarding commission of offence but the
learned trial court did not consider the evidence and other aspects
of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the aforesaid offences. The learned
trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 5. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 323, 324, 323/34, 324/34 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
[2025:RJ-JD:16323] (3 of 4) [CRLR-235/2006]
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 Nos.2 to 5 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 from offence under Sections
323, 324, 323/34, 324/34 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:16323] (4 of 4) [CRLR-235/2006]
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 judgment under
challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does 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 court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
235-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
