Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:22001) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1347/2007
Mahendra Singh S/o Bhaga Ram, B/c Sirvi, R/o Bilara, PS Bilara,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Heera Devi W/o Shri Ghisha Ram, B/c Sirvi, R/o Magaria
Bera, Ban Ganga Road, Bilara, PS Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
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 22.10.2007, passed by learned Additional District
& Session Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Cr. Appeal No.52/2007 whereby
the learned appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondent
No.2 and acquitted her from offence under Section 420 IPC while
reversing the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2007, passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bilara, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No.326/1997.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant
filed a written complaint before the concerned court against the
respondent No.2 and other accused persons for offence under
Sections 420, 120B IPC. The said complaint was sent to the
[2025:RJ-JD:22001] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1347/2007]
concerned Police Investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon
which, the Police registered the case and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Section
420 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The
respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and got exhibited certain documents.
Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused-
respondent No.2 examined herself.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.02.2007 convicted and sentenced
the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Section 420 IPC.
Being aggrieved by her conviction, the accused-respondent
No.2 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be allowed vide judgment dated 22.10.2007 and the
appellate court while reversing the judgment of conviction of the
trial court, acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under
Section 420 IPC. Hence this revision petition.
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-respondent No.2 from
offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel submits that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding
commission of offence but the learned appellate court did not
consider the same in right perspective and acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2. The learned appellate court has committed
[2025:RJ-JD:22001] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1347/2007]
grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. 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.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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-respondent No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus,
the learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Section 420 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
[2025:RJ-JD:22001] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1347/2007]
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 Court below 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
challenge. The learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 420 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:22001] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1347/2007]
The order passed by the learned appellate court is a 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 courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
25-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
