Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Goru Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22225) on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22225]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1318/2024
Goru Ram S/o Bega Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Khoda Tehsil
Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sahab Ram S/o Harlal, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
3. Hansraj S/o Harlal, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
4. Om Prakash S/o Harlal, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
5. Ramji Lal S/o Harlal, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
6. Hajari Ram S/o Sahi Ram, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
7. Vasudev S/o Birbal Ram, R/o Ward No. 3, Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
8. Manphool S/o Kisna Ram, R/o Bangasar Police Station
Pallu At Present Rawatsar Dist. Hanumangarh.
9. Mani Ram S/o Kurda Ram, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
10. Mamraj S/o Veeru Ram, R/o Khoda Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
11. Sahi Ram S/o Shyo Lal, R/o Khedasari, Tehsil Rawatsar,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
12. Chimna Ram S/o Magha Ram, R/o Rambas, Tehsil Bhadra,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
13. Vedprakash S/o Hanuman Singh, R/o Ward No. 13, Mandi
Pilibanga, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
08/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 29.08.2024, passed by learned Addl. Sessions
[2025:RJ-JD:22225] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1318/2024]
Judge No.1, Nohar, in Cr. Appeal No.148/2018 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Cr. Original
Case No.484/2016, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
respondents No.2 to 13 from offence under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint
filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.259/2001 was
registered at Police Station Rawatsar, under Section 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B IPC with the allegation that the accused-
respondents No.2 to 13 tampered with the documents and
prepared a forged will of Bega Ram, from which he claimed the
property.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 13. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to
13 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined fourteen
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 13 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, they examined one witness
viz., DW/1 Manphool.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.10.2018 acquitted the accused-
respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120-B of IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:22225] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1318/2024]
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2024.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused
respondents No.2 to 13 regarding commission of offence but the
learned Courts below did not consider the evidence and other
aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the
accused-respondents for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B of IPC. The learned courts below have committed
grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the
impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the
accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced
for aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned
courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-respondents after
due appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the impugned judgments
are just and proper warranting no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below,
it appears that the learned courts below while passing the
impugned judgments have considered each and every aspect of
the matter and also considered the evidence produced before
them in its right perspective. There are major contradictions,
[2025:RJ-JD:22225] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1318/2024]
omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses.
Thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of 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:22225] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1318/2024]
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
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgments under
challenge. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed
and reasoned order and thus, this court is not inclined to interfere
in the concurrent findings given by the courts below.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the courts below, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
82-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
