Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Ram Rakh And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:44618) on 10 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:44618]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 523/1996
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Rakh son of Rupa Ram
2. Badri Prasad son of Ram Rakh
3. Mst. Piroji wife of Ram Rakh
residents of 5 A.P.M., Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor for
the State
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrinal Khatri for Mr. S.K. Verma
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/10/2025
1. The appeal in hand preferred by the State under Section 378
(III) & (I) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment and order dated
04.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Raisinghnagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court')
in Sessions Case No.32/92, whereby the respondents were
acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. Mr. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor, at the outset, informed
that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 namely, Ram Rakh and Piroji
(wife of Ram Rakh) have since passed away.
3. The case emanates from an FIR dated 27.07.1991, which
came to be lodged by the complainant - Badri Prasad, who
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44618] (2 of 4) [CRLA-523/1996]
reported that at around 2:00 pm when he got from easing himself,
he found that his wife Mewa Devi was lying dead.
4. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 of the
IPC came to be filed against the accused persons namely, Ram
Rakh (respondent No.1), Badri Prasad (respondent No.2) and
Piroji (respondent No.3) being father-in-law, husband and mother-
in-law, respectively of the deceased - Mewa Devi.
5. The trial court framed the charges under Section 306 of the
IPC on 08.12.1993 and tried the case.
6. Considering the testimony of all the witnesses, the trial court
acquitted all the accused persons of the charges under Section
306 of the IPC.
7. It is a settled position that the order of acquittal should not
be interfered or reversed unless it shook the conscience of the
appellate Court.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Rai Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal
No. 1508 of 2005, has held that in appeal against acquittal, the
Court should be very slow and loath in interfering and unless there
is a serious misreading of the evidence or procedural lapses in the
trial, no interference should be made.
9. Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Ashok Rai
(supra) reads hereinfra:-
"8. Several Judgments of this court have been cited
on the principles which should guide the court while
dealing with an appeal against order of acquittal. The
law is so well settled that it is not necessary to refer
to those judgments. Suffice it to say that the
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44618] (3 of 4) [CRLA-523/1996]
appellate court has to be very cautious while
reversing an order of acquittal because order of
acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence of
the accused. If the view taken by the trial court is a
reasonably possible view it should not be disturbed,
because the appellate court feels that some other
view is also possible. A perverse order of acquittal
replete with gross errors of facts and law will have to
be set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice,
because just as the court has to give due weight to
the presumption of innocence and see that innocent
person is not sentenced, it is equally the duty of the
court to see that the guilty do not escape punishment.
Unless the appellate court finds the order of acquittal
to be clearly unreasonable and is convinced that there
are substantial and compelling reasons to interfere
with it, it should not interfere with it."
10. Reference may also be made to a judgment rendered in the
case Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P., reported in 2012 AIR
SCW 2990 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
"only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to
be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear
in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused
and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44618] (4 of 4) [CRLA-523/1996]
manner where the other view is possible should be
avoided, unless there are good reasons for
interference."
11. Going through the evidence on record and findings recorded
by the trial court, this Court is of the view that the trial court has
committed no error in appreciation of evidence or otherwise. That
apart, two of the accused persons namely, Ram Rakh (respondent
No.1) and Piroji (respondent No.3) being father-in-law and
mother-in-law have already passed away and the appeal is of the
year 1996 while incident is of 1991 and a period of about 35 years
has passed since the incident took place.
12. Hence, even if there is some scope for taking a view different
than what has been taken by the trial court, this Court would not
be persuaded to do the same.
13. The instant appeal against the acquittal is, therefore,
rejected.
14. The judgment and order dated 04.11.1995 passed by the
trial court is hereby affirmed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
26-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
