Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Ram vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:23422) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23422]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1160/2006
Kalu Ram S/o Kistoor Ram R/o Village Thawla, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Taru Ram S/o Hira Ram R/o Village Thawala, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur.
3. Hira Ram S/o Narayan Ram R/o Village Thawala, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur.
4. Roda Ram S/o Hira Ram R/o Village Thawala, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur.
5. Mool Chand S/o Mitulal R/o Village Thawala, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, AAG
Mr. Vishal Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
14/05/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
13.12.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Degana, District Nagaur in Cr. Main Case No.128/2003, whereby
the learned trial court acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 from
offences under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 326/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2003, the
complainant - Kalu Ram gave a Parcha Bayan alleging that at
about 7 PM he was having dinner at one Punaji's house then at
[2025:RJ-JD:23422] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1160/2006]
that time the present accused respondents No.2 to 5 along with
some other persons abused him and assaulted him with axe. On
this report, Police registered the case against the accused-
respondents No.2 to 5 and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges
against accused-respondents No.2 to 5 for offences under Sections
341, 323, 447 and 326/34 IPC.who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 16
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 13.12.2005 acquitted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 5 from offences under Sections 341, 323,
447 and 326/34 IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the
acquittal of accused-respondents No.2 to 5.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondents No.2 to 5
regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has
not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its
right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5
from offence under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 326/34 IPC. The
learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents No.2 to 5. Thus, the impugned judgment
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondents No.2 to 5 ought to have been convicted and
[2025:RJ-JD:23422] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1160/2006]
sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 326/34
IPC.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
8. 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.
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-respondents No.2 to 5
from offence under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 326/34 IPC.
9. 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 learned trial court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 5 from the offences. The order
passed by the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order
and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:23422] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1160/2006]
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.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any error of
[2025:RJ-JD:23422] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1160/2006]
law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by
this Court in the judgment under challenge.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
14. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
