Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shiku Ram vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:23389) on 14 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:23389]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 457/2005

Shiku Ram S/o Harji Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Mevada,
Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Arjun Ram S/o Khinya Ram
3. Jagdish S/o Amra Ram
4. Banshi Ram S/o Arjun Ram
5. Naulla Ram S/o Arjun Ram
6. Amra Ram S/o Khinya Ram
7. Pancha Ram S/o Arjun Ram
All B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Mevada, Tehsil Degana, PS Padu
Kalla, District Nagaur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
                                Mr. Ravindra Acharya



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

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 05.02.2005, passed by learned Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases cum Additional

Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Appeal No.11/2002 whereby the

learned appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondent

Nos.2 to 7 and acquitted them from offence under Sections 326,

323, 323/149, 326/149, 148, 149, 452 IPC while reversing the

judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2002, passed by the learned

[2025:RJ-JD:23389] (2 of 5) [CRLR-457/2005]

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City in Cr. Case

No.288/2000.

Brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2000, the petitioner-

complainant filed a written complaint before the Police Station

Padu Kalla to the effect that the accused-respondents No.2 to 7

illegally entered in his house and assaulted him and his family

members with deadly weapon i.e. kassi, axe & lathies. On the said

report, Police registered an FIR and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan

against the accused-respondents No.2 to 7. Thereafter, the trial

court framed the charges against the accused-respondents No.2 to

7, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve

witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,

statements of the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 were recorded

under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses namely Arjun

Ram and Pusa Ram were examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 25.07.2002 convicted and sentenced

the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 for offence under Sections

326, 323, 323/149, 326/149, 148, 149, 452 IPC.

Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused-

respondents No.2 to 7 preferred an appeal before the learned

appellate court, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated

05.02.2005 and the appellate court while reversing the judgment

of conviction of the trial court, acquitted the respondents No.2 to

7 from the aforesaid offences. Hence this revision petition.

[2025:RJ-JD:23389] (3 of 5) [CRLR-457/2005]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite

the clear cut findings of conviction of the trial court, the learned

appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from

offence under Sections 326, 323, 323/149, 326/149, 148, 149,

452 IPC. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence against the

accused-respondents No.2 to 7 regarding commission of offence

but the learned appellate court did not consider the same in right

perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 7. The

learned appellate court has committed grave error in acquitting

the accused-respondents No.2 to 7. Thus, the impugned appellate

judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment

of conviction passed by the trial court deserves to be upheld.

Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents

No.2 to 7 submits that the learned appellate 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

judgments of the courts below as well as considered the material

available on record.

On perusal of the impugned appellate judgment, it appears

that the learned appellate court while passing the impugned

judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and

also considered the finding of the trial court. 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 7 beyond all reasonable doubts and

thus, the learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the

[2025:RJ-JD:23389] (4 of 5) [CRLR-457/2005]

accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from offence under Sections 326,

323, 323/149, 326/149, 148, 149, 452 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:23389] (5 of 5) [CRLR-457/2005]

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