[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Bhanwar Lal And Anr (2026:Rj-Jd:20566) on 29 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20566]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 335/1999
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhanwarlal S/o Laburam
2. Sukhdev @ Sukhiya S/o Trilokaram
R/o Nayapura, Sojat City (Pali), P.S. Sojat City, District Pali
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manisha Phophaliya, Amicus
Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
29/04/2026
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment
dated 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 28/1997, whereby
the accused-respondents, namely, Bhanwarlal S/o Laburam and
Sukhdev @ Sukhiya S/o Trilokram have been acquitted of the
charges under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
2. Considering the fact that appeal pertains to the year 1999
and that the counsel representing the respondents is not
available, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it
appropriate to appoint Ms. Manisha Phophaliya as Amicus Curiae
to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-respondents under
the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20566] (2 of 5) [CRLA-335/1999]
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.04.1997,
the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Sojat City
alleging that his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone missing from the
house and was suspected to have been enticed away by the
accused persons. During investigation, the prosecutrix was
recovered and her statements were recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Medical examination
was also conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-
sheet came to be filed against the accused-respondents for
offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The case was
committed to the court of Sessions and after trial, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat (Pali) acquitted the accused-
respondents vide judgment dated 30.11.1998, which is assailed in
the present appeal.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court
has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law in acquitting the
accused-respondents despite there being sufficient evidence on
record establishing the prosecution case. It is contended that the
testimony of the prosecutrix has not been appreciated in its
proper perspective and the findings recorded by the trial court are
contrary to the material available on record. It is further submitted
that the learned trial court has wrongly extended the benefit of
doubt to the accused-respondents by adopting an erroneous
approach while evaluating the evidence. Learned Public
Prosecutor, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment be set
aside and the accused-respondents be convicted in accordance
with law.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20566] (3 of 5) [CRLA-335/1999]
5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-
respondents submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and
does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting
interference by this Court. It is contended that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and material
contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence
have rightly been taken into consideration by the trial court. It is
further submitted that the view taken by the trial court is a
plausible view and in an appeal against acquittal, this Court ought
not to interfere unless the findings are wholly unreasonable. It is,
therefore, prayed that the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned
Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents
and perused the material available on record including the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court.
7. The prosecution story, as emerging from the FIR as well as
from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during trial, is that
the prosecutrix, a grown-up major lady, was subjected to sexual
assault by the accused. As per her version, she had gone to a fair
where she met the accused-respondents, who offered her
water/refreshment and thereafter she felt fatigued, following
which she was taken away by them to different places. However,
the material on record indicates that the prosecutrix was
admittedly a major and was allegedly taken from a public place
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20566] (4 of 5) [CRLA-335/1999]
where several persons were present, yet she neither raised any
alarm nor sought assistance from anyone. The evidence further
reflects that she travelled through public places, remained in the
company of the accused-respondents for a considerable period of
about 20 days and had sufficient opportunity to escape or disclose
the alleged incident, but did not do so. Though there is some
delay in lodging the FIR, the same stands explained in view of the
fact that the prosecutrix remained in the company of the accused-
respondents for a considerable period.
8. It is further noteworthy that though the case pertains to
allegations under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, the prosecution has
examined only two witnesses and has not examined the doctor
who allegedly conducted the medical examination of the
prosecutrix. Any such medical document forming part of the police
papers has not been duly proved in accordance with law and thus
cannot be read in evidence. The absence of proved medical
evidence assumes significance and further weakens the
prosecution case.
9. The learned trial court has minutely examined the entire
evidence on record and has recorded a finding that the testimony
of the prosecutrix is not wholly reliable and does not inspire
confidence. The possibility that the prosecutrix accompanied the
accused-respondents of her own free will and volition, without any
compulsion, has not been ruled out. Her continued stay with the
accused for a prolonged period further creates serious doubt
regarding the prosecution case.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:31:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20566] (5 of 5) [CRLA-335/1999]
10. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal,
interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the
trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unreasonable.
Where two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the view favouring the accused deserves to be adopted.
The prosecution is required to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt, which standard has not been met in the present
case.
11. Guided by the principles governing interference in appeals
against acquittal as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104,
wherein it has been held that if the view taken by the trial court is
a plausible one, the appellate court ought not to interfere unless
the findings are perverse or manifestly illegal, this Court finds no
force in the present appeal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The record be returned
to the learned trial court.
13. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to remuneration
as per the Rules of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
(FARJAND ALI),J
47-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:31:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
