State vs Mega (2026:Rj-Jd:4329)
2026 Latest Caselaw 930 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 930 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mega (2026:Rj-Jd:4329) on 21 January, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:4329]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1997

State of Rajasthan
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Mega son of Prabhu by caste Nayak resident of Kerpura (Nayko
ka Kheda) Police Station Gangapur, District Bhilwara.
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. SriRam Choudhary
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. R.K. Charan



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/01/2026

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated

29.03.1997 passed by the learned leaned Special Judge (Women

Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 3/97

(292/94), whereby the accused-respondent, Mega, was acquitted

of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State of Rajasthan has

preferred the instant appeal.

2. Leave to appeal was granted in the year 1997. The appeal,

however, has remained pending before this Court for an

inordinately long period, and it is noticed that for several years

there has been no effective representation on behalf of the

accused-respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

has minutely examined the entire material available on record.

(Uploaded on 24/01/2026 at 01:22:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4329] (2 of 5) [CRLA-531/1997]

4. Briefly, the prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is

that on 25.10.1994 the complainant Narayan lodged a report at

Police Station, Gangapur, alleging that his daughter Ms. Pyaro,

while grazing cattle in the fields, was deceitfully sent by the

accused Mega, towards a nearby sorghum crop on the pretext of

retrieving her shawl, and thereupon was sexually assaulted by

him. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence under

Section 376 IPC came to be filed before the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, and the case was thereafter

committed to the Court of Sessions, Bhilwara on 23.12.1994.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6

witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of its

case. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313

CrPC, categorically denied all allegations, pleaded false

implication, and adduced defence evidence by examining two

witnesses and producing documents in rebuttal. Upon a detailed

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned

Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal.

6. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the entire

material on record and the impugned judgment, this Court finds

no infirmity warranting interference in the well-reasoned decision

of the learned trial Court. The testimony of the prosecutrix and

her father suffers from material contradictions on vital aspects,

including the manner of occurrence and the alleged insertion of a

stick, which strike at the very root of the prosecution case.

6.1 The medical evidence, far from lending assurance, fails to

conclusively establish the commission of rape and, on the

(Uploaded on 24/01/2026 at 01:22:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4329] (3 of 5) [CRLA-531/1997]

contrary, admits the possibility of the injuries having been caused

otherwise. The non-examination of natural and material witnesses,

coupled with the absence of corroborative medical and forensic

support, further weakens the prosecution version.

6.2 In such circumstances, where the edifice of the prosecution

rests on shaky and discrepant evidence, the benefit of doubt has

rightly been extended to the accused. This Court is in complete

agreement with the appreciation of evidence and the conclusions

recorded by the court below, which are neither perverse nor

contrary to law. The acquittal thus calls for no interference.

7. This Court finds that the findings of the Trial Court suffer

from neither perversity nor illegality, nor do they reflect any

misapplication of law. The view taken by the Trial Court is not only

reasonable but is also firmly borne out from the material on

record. Interference with such a well-reasoned acquittal would,

therefore, be wholly unwarranted.

8. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the

presumption of innocence in favour of an accused stands

reinforced once an acquittal is recorded by a competent court. An

appellate court must exercise restraint and interfere only where

the conclusions of the trial court are manifestly perverse, patently

illegal, or based on a complete misreading of material evidence.

Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused

must prevail.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011 decided on

12.02.2024, has succinctly reiterated the governing principles for

(Uploaded on 24/01/2026 at 01:22:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4329] (4 of 5) [CRLA-531/1997]

appellate interference with an order of acquittal, emphasizing that

a legally plausible view taken by the Trial Court ought not to be

supplanted merely because another view is possible. 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 principles, and upon an

anxious and conscientious scrutiny of the record, this Court finds

no justification to disturb the impugned judgment.

(Uploaded on 24/01/2026 at 01:22:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4329] (5 of 5) [CRLA-531/1997]

10. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is devoid of merit

and is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 29.03.1997 passed

by the learned leaned Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry

Cases) Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 3/97 (292/94), acquitting

the accused-respondent, is affirmed in toto. The respondent shall

not be required to surrender, and any process issued against him

shall stand withdrawn forthwith.