Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sarla vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:24808) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:24808]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1027/2006
Sarla D/o Nand Lal, by caste Mali, R/o Ward No.4, Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Pawan Kumar S/o Bajrang Lal,
3. Bajrang Lal S/o Hanuman Prasad,
4. Smt. Sarwani Devi W/o Bajrang Lal
All by caste Mali,
All residents of Ward No.26, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/05/2025
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment
dated 14.09.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Churu in Criminal Case No.410/2003 whereby the accused
respondents were tried and then acquitted from the charges under
Section 406 and 498-A of IPC.
1.2 The petitioner happens to be complainant of the case and as
per her, she is victim. Bereft of elaborate details succinctly stated
the facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner got
solemnized with the respondent - Pawan Kumar on 30.05.1996 as
per the Hindu rituals. It was alleged that after the marriage, she
was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with the demand of
dowry. On 28.03.1998, her father called her to her parental house
and whereafter she moved a petition seeking maintenance along
[2025:RJ-JD:24808] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1027/2006]
with the instant prosecution. The learned trial Court framed the
charges under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC and commenced the
trial. As many as seven witnesses were examined and certain
documents were relied upon by the prosecution. The accused was
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed
innocence and produced three witnesses in defence. After hearing
the parties and making a thread bare discussion of the material
brought on record, the learned trial court acquitted the accused
respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of
IPC. Hence, this petition.
2. The observation of the learned trial Court regarding lodging
of one FIR No.337 dated 11.09.2001 in which execution of
compromise on 30.09.2001 and withdrawal of proceeding under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and based upon which filing of a negative
final report, is not a question disputable by any of the party. P.W.-
7 (Ganesh Nath), in an unambiguous term has stated that in
connection to investigation in FIR No.337/2001, he conducted
investigation wherein the petitioner had admitted the fact that all
the dowry articles and stridhan belongs to her only and not
entrusted to the respondent. She also claimed to have stated the
fact to P.W.-7 (Ganesh Nath) about prompting her to lodge a false
case against the accused respondent. On three occasions, the
investigation in this matter was carried on by senior officers,
including Dy.S.P. and Additional S.P. and whereafter a final report
was submitted in the Court, however, in a subsequent
development, charge-sheet came to be submitted. The
prosecution has been launched based on subsequent report. Ex.P/
3 (samjhauta nama) is on record and there is no evidence even
[2025:RJ-JD:24808] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1027/2006]
for the namesake that after execution of compromise between the
parties, they lived together or any cruelty meted to her. In a
criminal prosecution, the burden to prove the charge always lies
upon the shoulders of the prosecution. In this case, it miserably
failed to establish the fact that the victim was subjected to cruelty
at the hands of the respondents. The learned trial Court has very
meticulously examined the evidence brought on record and cogent
reasons have been assigned in acquitting the accused respondents
which in my view does not require any interference.
2.1 This Court is of the view that in an appeal or revision against
the judgment of acquittal, the upper Court should show reluctance
or should be slow in making interference until it is felt that the
judgment of acquittal is a product of total non consideration of the
material brought on record or is against the provisions of law or it
is based on mis-appreciation of evidence. After careful scrutiny of
the record, I do not find any such infirmity in the order under
assail. In the case of Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has spelled down some parameters
regarding making interference by the appellate Court in the case
of acquittal. For the ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of
which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on
the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as
guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values
of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of
justice. The principles which come into play while
deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized
as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
[2025:RJ-JD:24808] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1027/2006]
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a
ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds
that two views are possible, the one in favour of the
Accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible
view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not
justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it
must specifically address all the reasons given by the
Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction,
the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality,
perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the
Trial Court."
3. In view of the above, there is no force in the instant petition
and the same is devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the
petitioner failed to indicate illegality or incorrectness in the
judgment under challenge, for which, any interference would be
required.
4. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is
dismissed.
5. record be sent back.
6. The acquittal of the accused respondents is further affirmed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
12-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
