Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24381) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24381]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 586/2025
Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Deepchand Ji, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ratnaram S/o Shri Cholaram, R/o Jaleli Aaycha, P.s.
Dangiyawas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Ramaram @ Ramesh S/o Shri Banshilal, R/o Pal Shilp
Gram, P.s. Boranada, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Mohnot
Mr. Himanshu Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
20/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
11.02.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4,
Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Appeal No.60/2024, by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld
the judgment dated 22.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge
& Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Case
No.81/2014 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 from the offences under Sections 420, 120-
B IPC by giving benefit of doubt.
[2025:RJ-JD:24381] (2 of 5) [CRLR-586/2025]
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant
filed a complaint before the Police Station, CHB, Jodhpur against
the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 420,
120B IPC. Upon which, the Police registered an FIR against the
accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.12.2023 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 from the aforesaid offences.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
11.02.2025. Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections
420, 120B IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence
against them for commission of the alleged offence. While passing
the impugned judgments, the learned courts below did not
consider the documentary evidence as well as other aspects of the
matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgments
[2025:RJ-JD:24381] (3 of 5) [CRLR-586/2025]
deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent
Nos.2 & 3 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence
under Sections 420, 120B IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and
perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and
the judgments passed by the courts below.
On perusal of the impugned judgments, 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 oral as well as documentary evidence produced
before it in 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 Nos.2 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the
learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 420, 120B 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:24381] (4 of 5) [CRLR-586/2025]
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.
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 learned courts below have rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from the offences. The orders
[2025:RJ-JD:24381] (5 of 5) [CRLR-586/2025]
passed by the learned courts below are detailed and reasoned
orders and the same do 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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
12-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
