State vs Mal Chand And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:24394)
2025 Latest Caselaw 9906 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9906 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mal Chand And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:24394) on 20 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:24394]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 88/1996

State of Rajasthan
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1. Mal Chand S/o Shri Ratiram by caste Jangir,
2. Bale Khan S/o Shri Ajim Khan, by caste Kayamkhani Muslim,
3. Abdul Haq S/o Sadique by caste Mohammad Kaji (Musalman)
All R/o Sardar Shahar Police Station Sardarshahar, District
Churu.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. M.D. Sharma



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

20/05/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State

under Section 378(4) & (1) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the

accused-respondents from offences under Sections 467, 468, 419,

114 & 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 13.12.1993 passed by

learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sardarshahar,

District Churu in Regular Cr. Case No.322/1985.

Brief facts of the case are that the accused-respondents

tampered with the documents and sold the property of

complainant Prasan Kumar to someone else by way of forged sale

deed. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the

accused-respondents and after usual investigation, the police filed

challan against them. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance

against the accused-respondents and framed the charge for

[2025:RJ-JD:24394] (2 of 5) [CRLA-88/1996]

offence under Sections 467, 468, 419, 114 & 120-B IPC. The

accused-respondents denied the charge and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as seven witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,

statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313

Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 13.12.1993 acquitted the accused-

respondents from offence under Section 467, 468, 419, 114 &

120-B IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that

there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents

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 accused-respondents from offence

under Section 467, 468, 419, 114 & 120-B IPC. The learned trial

court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-

respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be

quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to

have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer

made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the

learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents

after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not

warrant any interference from this Court.

[2025:RJ-JD:24394] (3 of 5) [CRLA-88/1996]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment

passed by the trial.

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-respondents beyond all reasonable

doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-

respondents from offence under Sections 467, 468, 419, 114 &

120-B IPC.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State 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.

In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of

Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, 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

[2025:RJ-JD:24394] (4 of 5) [CRLA-88/1996]

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

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 against acquittal except that while

dealing with an appeal 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 appellant has failed

to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which