Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bajrang Lal vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:22046) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22046]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1383/2007
Bajrang Lal S/o Kishan Das, By caste Sad, R/o Badu, Tehsil
Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Bheru Lal, by caste Brahmin, R/o Sirsala,
Police Station Gachchhipura, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha for
Mr. D.S. Udawat, for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
07/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 24.08.2007, passed by learned Addl. Sessiosn
Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar in Sessions Case No.26/2007
(13/2007) whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 363, 366 and
376 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint
filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.18/2007 was
registered at Police Station Gachchhipura, under Sections 363 &
366 IPC with the allegation that the accused-respondent No.2
abducted his niece Chandra Kala.
[2025:RJ-JD:22046] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1383/2007]
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the charges
were framed against the accused-respondent No.2 for offence
under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC. He denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty
two witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 24.08.2007 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this criminal
revision petition.
It is mentioned in the revision petition that there is ample
evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 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 respondent No.2. Thus, the
impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused respondent No.2 may be
convicted.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits
that the learned Trial Court has considered each and every aspect
of the matter and has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent
No.2 from the aforesaid offences. The impugned judgment of the
Trial Court is just and proper and does not warrant any
interference.
[2025:RJ-JD:22046] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1383/2007]
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-respondent No.2 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Section 363, 366
and 376 IPC.
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
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:22046] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1383/2007]
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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:22046] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1383/2007]
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
26-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
