[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Bhekam Chand on 1 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14321]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 692/1998
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Bhekam Chand S/o Durga Prasad R/o Pesangan District Ajmer
At present Channa Bhakar, District Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 05/03/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 25.07.1998 rendered by the learned Addl. District &
Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 8/1998,
whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the
charge under Section 376 of the IPC.
2. I have heard the learned Dy. Government Advocate for the
State at length; none has appeared on behalf of the respondent-
accused. The impugned judgment, along with the entire record of
the case, has been carefully perused and examined in its entirety.
3. The prosecution case, in a concise compass, originates from
a written report submitted on 11.11.1997 at about 10:30 AM by
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (2 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
the complainant Ramesh Chandra Acharya, alleging that during
the intervening night, when he had gone to attend a marriage
ceremony, the accused forcibly entered his house and allegedly
committed rape upon his wife, Smt. Santosh. It was alleged that
upon returning early in the morning, the complainant found his
wife missing and subsequently encountered her on the way,
whereupon she disclosed that the accused had forcibly taken her
near a dairy cabin and committed sexual assault, coupled with
threats to her life.
3.1 On the basis of the said report, a case under Section 376 IPC
was registered. The police conducted investigation, prepared the
site plan, recorded statements of witnesses, got the prosecutrix
medically examined, and after completion of investigation,
submitted a charge-sheet against the accused.
3.2. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where
charge under Section 376 IPC was framed. The accused denied
the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined multiple
witnesses including the complainant, the prosecutrix, medical
officer, and investigating officer. The accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and denied the allegations. No defence
evidence was adduced. Vide the judgment impugned, the
respondent has been acquitted, hence the instant appeal.
4. Upon a thorough and reappreciative scrutiny of the evidence
on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has
undertaken an exhaustive, incisive, and legally tenable evaluation
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (3 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
of the material placed before it, and has rightly recorded an order
of acquittal.
4.1 At the threshold, it is apposite to reiterate that in an appeal
assailing a judgment of acquittal, the superior court must exercise
circumspection, restraint, and judicial sobriety, and ought to
remain slow and reluctant in interfering with the findings recorded
by the court below. Interference is not to be undertaken in a
routine or casual manner, but only in those exceptional
circumstances where it is demonstrably evident that the impugned
judgment suffers from patent illegality, is in derogation of settled
statutory provisions, or has been rendered in complete disregard
or non-consideration of material evidence on record.
4.2 It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
presumption of innocence stands reinforced once an order of
acquittal is recorded. An appellate court, while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal, is required to exercise restraint and may
interfere only when the findings of the Trial Court are perverse,
manifestly erroneous, or based on misreading of evidence.
4.3 If the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonably possible
and legally sustainable view, the same ought not to be disturbed
merely because another view is also possible. The Trial Court,
having had the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses, is entitled to due deference unless its conclusions are
shown to be wholly unsustainable.
4.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011 decided on
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (4 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
12.02.2024) has reiterated that interference with an order of
acquittal is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality or
perversity. The principles enunciated therein emphasize that
where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must
prevail, and a plausible view taken by the Trial Court ought not to
be supplanted. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment encapsulates
the doctrine in the following terms:
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on
the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as
guilty...
(i) Appreciation of evidence must be holistic and
comprehensive;
(ii) Selective or truncated evaluation may itself occasion
miscarriage of justice;
(iii) If two views are possible, the one favourable to the
accused must ordinarily prevail;
(iv) A legally plausible view of the Trial Court cannot be
supplanted merely because another view is possible;
(v) In reversing an acquittal, the appellate Court must
deal with all reasons assigned by the Trial Court;
(vi) Conversion of acquittal into conviction requires
demonstration of manifest illegality, perversity, or
patent error in the Trial Court's approach."
Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled principles and
upon a thorough scrutiny of the record, this Court finds no
compelling reason to take a view different from that taken by the
learned Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence appears to be
judicious, comprehensive, and in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (5 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
4.5. It is equally trite that where the court of first instance has
exercised its discretion upon a proper and judicious appreciation of
evidence, the superior court ought not to supplant its own view
merely because an alternative interpretation is conceivable. The
discretionary jurisdiction, when exercised in accordance with law
and upon sound evaluation of facts, commands deference and
ought not to be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn are
manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or unsustainable. Thus, the
appellate forum is not envisaged as a platform for re-appreciation
of evidence in substitution of findings already arrived at, but
rather as a supervisory mechanism to ensure that justice has not
been vitiated by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
4.6. At the very outset, it is evident that the prosecution case
hinges predominantly upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and
her husband. While it is a settled principle that conviction in cases
under Section 376 IPC can be founded on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire implicit confidence
and withstand the test of intrinsic reliability.
4.7. In the present case, the learned trial Court has meticulously
delineated substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the
statements of the prosecutrix and her husband. The narrative
regarding the manner of occurrence, the place of the alleged
offence, and the surrounding circumstances is fraught with
discrepancies, thereby rendering the prosecution version
inherently doubtful.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (6 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
4.8. A significant circumstance noted by the trial Court pertains to
the improbability of the incident itself. The prosecutrix was
allegedly taken from her residence, situated in a populated
locality, to a dairy cabin located at some distance, without raising
any alarm, despite the presence of neighbouring houses and the
natural possibility of intervention. Such conduct, when tested
against the touchstone of ordinary human behaviour, appears
highly implausible.
4.9. Further, the medical evidence assumes critical importance.
The medical officer categorically opined that no fresh injuries were
found on the private parts or thighs of the prosecutrix, and no
definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse or rape could
be given. The minor injuries found on her person were not
consistent with a forcible act involving resistance. This absence of
medical corroboration significantly undermines the prosecution
case.
4.10. Equally noteworthy is the absence of physical evidence at
the alleged place of occurrence. The site inspection did not reveal
any marks indicative of struggle or commission of the alleged
offence, despite the prosecutrix's assertion of resistance on a
kachcha surface, which would ordinarily leave discernible traces.
4.11. Another material infirmity arises from the conduct attributed
to the accused, as per the prosecution version itself. The
suggestion that the accused, after allegedly committing rape,
asked the prosecutrix to bring her daughter and elope with him, is
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (7 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
incongruous with normal human conduct and militates against the
prosecution narrative.
4.12. The delay in lodging the FIR, though not inordinate, remains
insufficiently explained in the factual matrix of the case,
particularly when the police station was situated in close
proximity. The evidence further reveals that prior to lodging of the
report, an altercation had taken place between the complainant
and the accused, thereby giving rise to the possibility of
embellishment or false implication.
4.13. The learned trial Court has also rightly adverted to
contradictions regarding distances and place of incident, as well as
the prior acquaintance between the parties, which cumulatively
cast a shadow of doubt over the prosecution case. Moreover, the
medical examination of the accused did not yield any incriminating
findings suggestive of recent sexual activity, further diluting the
prosecution case.
4.14. In sum, the prosecution evidence suffers from material
contradictions, lack of corroboration, medical inconclusiveness,
and inherent improbabilities, thereby failing to establish the
charge beyond reasonable doubt.
4.15. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial Court has appreciated the
evidence in its proper perspective and has rightly extended the
benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused. The findings recorded
are plausible, well-reasoned, and do not suffer from any perversity
or illegality warranting interference.
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14321] (8 of 8) [CRLA-692/1998]
5. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 25.07.1998 rendered
by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in
Sessions Case No. 8/1998 is hereby affirmed.
6. Let the record of the case be transmitted back to the trial
Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
112-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:34:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
