Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amritlal vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:23379) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23379]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 891/2004
Amritlal S/o Gulabchand, by caste Kalal, R/o Jaitaran, Police
Station Jaitaran, District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Jabar Singh S/o Kalyan Singh,
3. Umed Singh S/o Kalyan Singh,
4. Gajey Singh @ Gajendra Singh S/o Kalyan Singh,
All by caste Rajput, R/o Sinla, Doongri Ki Dhani, Jaitaran,
District Pali
5. Om Singh @ Omvir Singh S/o Man Singh, By caste Rajput,
R/o Amarpura, Employed in Sojat Light Decoration, Jaitaran,
District Pali.
6. Kundan Singh S/o Koju Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Uchiyara,
Police Station Bilara, At present Sojat Light Decoration,
Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. R.S. Chundawat, for respondents
NO.2 to 6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 21.01.2004, passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge Fast Track No.1, Pali Camp Jaitaran, in Sessions Case
No.94/2003 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 6 from the offences under Sections
148, 307, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323, 323/149 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:23379] (2 of 5) [CRLR-891/2004]
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant lodged
an FIR No.359/2001 at Police Station Jaitaran, to the effect that
on 04.11.2001 at about 11.30 a.m. when he was sitting at his
shop then 5-6 persons came in Jeep and assaulted him with sword
and iron rods. On this report, FIR was lodged against the accused
respondents.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 6. Thereafter, the
charges were framed against the accused-respondents No.2 to 6
for offence under Sections 148, 307, 325, 324, 323 R/w 149 IPC.
They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve
witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.01.2004 acquitted the accused-
respondents from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal
revision petition.
It is mentioned in the revision petition that there is ample
evidence against the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 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 respondents No.2 to 6. Thus, the
impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused respondents No.2 to 6
may be convicted.
[2025:RJ-JD:23379] (3 of 5) [CRLR-891/2004]
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents No.2 to 6
submits that the learned Trial Court has considered each and
every aspect of the matter and has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 6 from the aforesaid offences. The impugned
judgment of the Trial Court is just and proper and does not
warrant any interference.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the
respondent and perused the impugned judgment passed by the
courts below as well as the revision petition and 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-respondents No.2 to 6 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 from aforesaid offence.
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:23379] (4 of 5) [CRLR-891/2004]
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/
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
[2025:RJ-JD:23379] (5 of 5) [CRLR-891/2004]
the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with.
Learned counsel for 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.
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
7-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
