Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Damodar vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:24778) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24778]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 514/2007
Damodar S/o Chouthuram R/o Udasar, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Satya Prakash @ Sattu S/o Krishan R/o Udasar, Tehsil &
District Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
04.04.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No.1, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.07/2007,
whereby the learned Judge acquitted the respondent No.2 from
offences under Sections 376 (2)(e), 315 & 316 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2006, the petitioner/
complainant submitted a written report at Arakshi Kendra, Jai
Narayan Vyas Colony alleging that he works as a labourer and he
lives with his parents & daughter. When he left for labour work,
the accused-respondent No.2 used to come at his house and sister
of accused use to take the complainant's daughter/victim at her
house. On 29.11.2006, victim's health suddenly deteriorate and
she was taken to PBM hospital and upon examination by doctor, it
was revealed that victim pregnant. When victim was asked about
[2025:RJ-JD:24778] (2 of 5) [CRLR-514/2007]
pregnancy, she told the accused-respondent was committing rape
with her for last 7-8 months by threatening her. On this report,
Police registered the case against the accused-respondent No.2
and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges
against accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 376
(2)(e), 315 & 316 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 9
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence 7 witnesses were examined and
various documents were exhibited.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 04.04.2007 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 376 (2)(e), 315
and 316 IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of
accused-respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding
commission of offence but the learned trial court has not
considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its
right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.2
from offence under Sections 376(2)(e), 315 and 316 IPC. The
learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves
to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2
[2025:RJ-JD:24778] (3 of 5) [CRLR-514/2007]
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under
Sections 376(2)(e), 315 and 316 IPC.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
8. 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.
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 Sections 376(2)(e), 315 and 316 IPC.
9. 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 trial court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.2 from the offences. The order passed by
the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
10. 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:24778] (4 of 5) [CRLR-514/2007]
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.
11. 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."
12. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24778] (5 of 5) [CRLR-514/2007]
law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by
this Court in the judgment under challenge.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
14. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
