[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crla / 240U / 1998State vs Manak Chand on 30 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:19588]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 73/1998

State Of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Shri Manak Chand s/o Sh. Mohan Lal r/o Moharai P.S. Jetaran
/Pali, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s)           :     Ms. Alisha Dargar, Amicus Curiae



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                   Judgment



DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                       08/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED                                    08/04/2026

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 25.07.1997 passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat camp

Jetaran/Pali/Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.53/1996,

whereby the accused-respondent came to be acquitted of the

charges under Sections 376/511, 354, 323 I.P.C. Leave

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (2 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

having already been granted by this Court, the matter now

stands converted into and is being considered as a regular

criminal appeal against acquittal.

Facts of the Case

2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution case, a written report

was submitted by complainant Mishrilal on 28.08.1996 at

Police Station Jaitaran alleging that his minor daughter 'Kali'

had gone in the morning to collect/cut firewood near the

enclosure of her uncle Suganaram. It was alleged that the

accused Manak came from behind, gagged her, dragged her

to a nearby nala, threw her on the ground, lifted her clothes,

and attempted to commit rape. On her raising alarm,

Suganaram reached the spot, whereupon the accused

allegedly desisted and fled after seeking pardon. It was

further alleged that the victim sustained injuries during the

occurrence.

3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case,

being triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed.

Charges under Sections 376/511, 354 and 323 IPC were

framed against the accused, who denied the same and

claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the

prosecutrix (PW-2), Suganaram (PW-1), Narmada (PW-3),

parents of the prosecutrix, and the doctor. The accused, in

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (3 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the

allegations and claimed false implication on account of prior

enmity. No defence evidence was led.

5. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court

acquitted the accused of all charges. Aggrieved thereby, the

state has approached this court.

Submissions of Counsel

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court

erred in discarding the cogent and consistent testimony of

the prosecutrix, duly corroborated by medical evidence, and

that the acquittal is based on hyper-technical contradictions.

7. Learned counsel Ms. Alisha Dargar is hereby appointed as

Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the

Respondents under the free legal aid scheme of Rajasthan

State Legal Services Authority. The remuneration to learned

counsel shall be paid by RSLSA as the per the rules.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Observations and Analysis

9. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and has carefully re-appreciated the entire

evidence available on record.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (4 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

10.At the outset, it is to be noted that the prosecution case

hinges primarily upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and

her close relatives. While it is well settled that conviction can

be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it

inspires confidence, the same must nevertheless be of

sterling quality, free from material contradictions and

improbabilities.

11.In the present case, a close scrutiny of the record reveals

significant inconsistencies between the First Information

Report and the deposition of key witnesses. As per the FIR,

the incident involved dragging of the victim and an attempt to

outrage modesty, whereas in the Court statements,

substantial improvements have been made by exaggerating

the nature of assault, including assertions regarding the

victim being found in a state of complete nudity and

additional allegations of physical acts not originally stated.

12.The testimony of PW-1 Suganaram, projected as an eye-

witness, is not free from doubt. His version materially

deviates from the FIR, particularly regarding the sequence of

events, the condition of the prosecutrix, and his own role in

bringing her back. These contradictions are not minor but go

to the root of the prosecution case.

13.Further, PW-3 Narmada, who is claimed to be another eye-

witness, finds no mention in the FIR. Her presence at the

scene appears to be an afterthought, thereby diminishing the

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (5 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

evidentiary value of her testimony. The improvements and

inconsistencies between her statement and that of PW-1

further weaken the prosecution case.

14.The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2), though crucial, is

also not wholly consistent. Variations exist regarding the

manner of occurrence, distance of the place of incident, and

the conduct of the accused. The possibility of tutoring cannot

be ruled out, particularly in light of her admission that

statements were read over to her prior to deposition.

15.The medical evidence, though indicating simple injuries, does

not conclusively support the prosecution version of an

attempted rape. The injuries are general in nature and could

be attributable to multiple causes. Notably, no torn clothes

were seized or produced, which would have been a vital

corroborative piece of evidence in such a case.

16.Moreover, the admitted existence of longstanding enmity

between the families lends credence to the defence plea of

false implication. The absence of any independent witness,

despite the incident allegedly occurring in proximity to

residential houses and a public road, further renders the

prosecution version doubtful.

17.The learned Trial Court has meticulously analyzed these

aspects and has recorded well-reasoned findings. The view

taken by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (6 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

based on misreading of evidence. Rather, it is a plausible view

emerging from the material on record.

18.At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the settled

legal position governing appeals against acquittal. In

Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal

No.1162/2011 decided on 12.02.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has reiterated that interference with an order of

acquittal is permissible only when the findings are manifestly

illegal, perverse, or wholly unsustainable.

19.The principles laid down therein clearly mandate that where

two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must

prevail, and a plausible view taken by the Trial Court should

not be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

20. 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;

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:32:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19588] (7 of 8) [CRLA-73/1998]

(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."

21.Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this

Court finds that the appreciation of evidence by the learned

Trial Court is holistic, balanced, and in accordance with law.

No perversity, illegality, or material irregularity has been

demonstrated so as to warrant interference.

Conclusion

22.Tested on the anvil of the settled principles of law and upon

an independent re-appreciation of evidence, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,

and the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable

and plausible one.