Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Razia vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:39551) on 3 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39551]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 75/2007
Smt. Razia W/o Shafi Mohd, R/o Ward No.27, Sardarshahar,
District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Subhan Shah S/o Lal Mohd., R/o Sardarshahar, District
Churu.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. H.S. Jodha, P.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. N.L. Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
03/09/2025
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section
397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the
petitioner against the judgment dated 19.09.2006 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter to be referred as the
'trial court') in Sessions Case No.15/2006, whereby the
respondent No.2 was acquitted for the offences under Section
304-B and 498-A of IPC.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for
disposal of the case are that on 05.05.2006, daughter of petitioner
gave a statement to the police stating therein that it had been
four years since her marriage to the respondent No.2; however, on
04.05.2006, her husband i.e. respondent No.2 told her that he
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 01:04:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39551] (2 of 3) [CRLR-75/2007]
would leave her and her mother-in-law threatened to force her out
of the home, thereafter, her mother-in-law poured kerosene upon
her and her husband i.e. respondent No.2 set on her fire, burning
her body from head to knee. Subsequently, her brother-in-law,
father-in-law, and sister-in-law took her to the government
hospital for treatment.
2.1. On the said statement, the FIR No.127/2006 was registered
at Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 498-A and 34 of IPC and after
conducting thorough investigation, the police filed charge-sheet
against the accused/respondent No.2 for the offences under
Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.
2.2. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused
respondent No.2 and after completion of the trial, the learned trial
court vide judgment dated 19.09.2006 acquitted the accused
respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A
of IPC. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
judgment passed by the trial court.
3.1. It appears that the learned trial court after examining the
evidence brought on record, concluded that the prosecution had
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused-respondent No.2 and accordingly, acquitted him.
3.2. The learned trial court observed that even if the statement
given by the petitioner's daughter is considered as dying
declaration, it cannot be held admissible or relied upon in the
absence of any corroborative evidence to support its veracity.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 01:04:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39551] (3 of 3) [CRLR-75/2007]
Additionally, there is no evidence with regard to demand of dowry
and harassment for dowry. Further noted that there was no
evidence on record against the accused-respondent No.2 for his
conviction in relation to the alleged offences; therefore, I see no
reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.
Moreover, the court of revision should generally be reluctant to
interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless it is established that
such judgment is not based on a thorough consideration of the
evidence on record.
3.3. The powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. are limited to examine
the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment which has
aptly been seen by this Court.
3.4. Hence, there is no force in this revision petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
3.5. All pending applications are disposed of.
4. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.10
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 01:04:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
