Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tulsi Ram vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:16300) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 255/2007
Tulsi Ram S/o Lachhi Ram Salvi, R/o Kareda, PS Rajnagar,
District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Shri Bheru Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh Rajput, R/o Kareda, PS
Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
3. Shri Dhan Singh S/o Heer Singh Rajput, R/o Kareda, PS
Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
4. Shri Ganpat Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh Rajput, R/o Kareda, PS
Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
Ms. Vandana Prajapati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
Mr. BS Rathore
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 22.12.2006, passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions
Case No.09/2006, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act.
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2005, the petitioner-
complainant submitted a written report at Police Station Rajnagar
to the effect that accused respondents No.2 to 4 assaulted him
[2025:RJ-JD:16300] (2 of 5) [CRLR-255/2007]
and his wife Devi Bai while using caste oriented language. They
also tried to outrage the modesty of complainant's wife. On the
said complaint, Police registered a case against the accused
respondents No.2 to 4 and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as thirteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited
certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, three witnesses were examined and exhibited certain
documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.12.2006 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 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 4 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 4 from the aforesaid offences. The learned
trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4
[2025:RJ-JD:16300] (3 of 5) [CRLR-255/2007]
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4
submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and
reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from
this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
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 4 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections
341, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St Act.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:16300] (4 of 5) [CRLR-255/2007]
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/
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
[2025:RJ-JD:16300] (5 of 5) [CRLR-255/2007]
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
237-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
