[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 15U / 1994State vs Nathu Nath on 30 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:19962]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 335/1994
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Nathu Nath s/o Sunder Nath r/o Naga Ka Badiya P.S. Kerada
district Bhilwara.
----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 09/04/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 09/04/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full JUDGMENT
DATE Of PRONOUNCEMENT 30/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The State of Rajasthan initially instituted the present matter
as an application seeking leave to appeal under Section
378(iii) read with Section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 13.03.1992 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 140/90,
whereby the accused-respondent came to be acquitted of the
charge under Section 376 I.P.C,1860. Leave having already
been granted by this Court, the matter now stands converted
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (2 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
into and is being considered as a regular criminal appeal
against acquittal.
Facts of the Case
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case arises from a written
report submitted on 21.07.1990 by complainant Khoom Nath
at Police Station Kareda alleging that on 19.07.1990, his wife
(prosecutrix) had gone to an agricultural field, where the
accused Nathunath allegedly caught hold of her, gagged her,
forcibly took her to a secluded place and committed rape.
3. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences
under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The case was committed to
the Court of Sessions, where charge under Section 376 IPC
was framed against the accused, who denied the allegations
and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses
and exhibited several documents including medical reports
and FSL report. The accused, in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and stated that there was
prior acquaintance and false implication due to domestic
dispute. One defence witness was also examined.
4. After full trial, the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment
dated 13.03.1992, acquitted the accused holding that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. Aggrieved thereby, the state has approached this
Court.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (3 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
Submissions of Counsel
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submited that the learned Trial
Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of the
prosecutrix despite corroborative medical and FSL evidence.
6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the
materials available on record.
Observations and Findings
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present appeal is
directed against an order of acquittal. The settled position of
law mandates that interference in such appeals is
permissible only when the findings recorded by the Trial
Court are perverse, manifestly illegal, or wholly
unsustainable.
8. Upon a comprehensive scrutiny of the impugned judgment,
this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has undertaken a
detailed and reasoned analysis of the evidence.
(i) FSL Evidence and Seizure Doubts
9. The learned Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the FSL
report. There are glaring inconsistencies regarding seizure of
the prosecutrix's clothes. While the seizure memo suggests
immediate seizure, the prosecutrix herself admitted in cross-
examination that her clothes were taken 5-7 days after the
incident. Further, the prosecution failed to examine
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (4 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
independent witnesses to the seizure and did not establish
the safe custody and chain of transmission of the articles to
the FSL.
10.In such circumstances, the possibility of tampering cannot be
ruled out. The Trial Court's conclusion that FSL evidence does
not support the prosecution is well-founded.
(ii) Medical Evidence
11.The medical examination was conducted with delay and does
not corroborate the allegation of forcible rape. No injuries
were found on the private parts or other relevant areas of the
body. The absence of injuries, particularly when the
prosecutrix claims resistance on a rough surface, assumes
significance. The Trial Court has logically inferred that had
there been forcible resistance, injuries would have been
present. The medical evidence, therefore, does not support
the prosecution case.
(iii) Delay in FIR
12.The FIR was lodged after a delay of about two days. The
explanation offered that the accused initially did not admit
guilt is wholly unsatisfactory. The delay assumes importance
in the facts of the present case and creates doubt regarding
the veracity of the prosecution story.
(iv) Contradictions in Testimony
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (5 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
13.Material contradictions exist between the statements of the
prosecutrix and her husband regarding the place and manner
of occurrence and disclosure of the incident. Even the alleged
place of occurrence is inconsistently described.
14.Such contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case
and have been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court.
(v) Absence of Corroboration
15.The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses,
though available. The alleged broken bangles were not
recovered. A cited witness (Trilok Nath), who allegedly heard
cries, did not support the prosecution case.
(vi) Consent and Conduct
16.The Trial Court has also observed that the conduct of the
prosecutrix does not indicate resistance. While such
observations must be made cautiously, in the present case
they arise from cumulative inconsistencies and absence of
corroboration.
(vii) Burden of Proof
17.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If
any doubt arises, the benefit must go to the accused. The
Trial Court has applied this principle correctly.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (6 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
Applicability of Legal Principles
18.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011, decided on
12.02.2024) has reiterated that interference with acquittal is
permissible only in cases of perversity or manifest illegality. It
has been held that:
• If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused
must prevail;
• A plausible view taken by the Trial Court cannot be
substituted;
• Reversal of acquittal requires clear demonstration of
perversity.
19. 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;
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (7 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
(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."
20.Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, this Court
finds that the view taken by the Trial Court is not only
plausible but also well-reasoned and based on proper
appreciation of evidence.
Conclusion
21.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are neither
perverse nor illegal, but are based on sound reasoning and
appreciation of evidence.
22.No ground for interference is made out.
Order
23.Accordingly, the present criminal appeal filed by the State is
dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 13.03.1992
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19962] (8 of 8) [CRLA-335/1994]
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara is hereby
affirmed.
24.Record be returned forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
45-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:34:11 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
