Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rinku vs State And Anr on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26776]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 582/2007
Rinku W/o Kana Ram, Aged 30 years R/o Chak 4 RJD, Tehsil
Chhattragarh District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Bhagirath S/o Sugna Ram, R/o 2 KVM P.S. Chhattragarh
District Bikaner.
3. Moola Ram S/o Hukma Ram R/o Bakhtawarpura P.S. Rajiyasar
District Sri Ganganagar
4. Kistoora Ram S/o Sukha Ram R/o Chak 4 RJD P.S.
Chhattragarh District Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.D. Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Anil Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 22/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The petitioner-complainant has filed the present Criminal
Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated
14.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 126/2006 (State vs.
Bhagirath & Others), arising from FIR No. 85/2006 registered at
Police Station Chhattargarh, District Bikaner. By the impugned
judgment, the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charge
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:29 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26776] (2 of 5) [CRLR-582/2007]
2. The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged by the
prosecutrix on 26.06.2006, which was forwarded under Section
156(3) CrPC to the concerned police station, whereupon FIR No.
85/2006 was registered under Sections 376 and 109 IPC against
accused Bhagirath, Kisturaram, and Moolaram. It was alleged that
the accused repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault
over several years, under threats and coercion, with the
knowledge and passive consent of her husband and family
members.
2.1. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section
376 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where
the accused denied the allegations and claimed trial. During trial,
the prosecution examined several witnesses including the
prosecutrix (PW-1), her relatives, the medical officer (PW-8), and
the investigating officer. The defence examined four witnesses in
rebuttal. The trial court, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, recorded findings which form the basis of
the acquittal. The main observations of the learned Trial Judge are
summarized as follows:
a. The complaint was filed approximately one year after the
alleged incidents, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for
this inordinate delay, which casts serious doubt on the credibility
of the prosecution’s version.
b. The prosecutrix’s testimony (PW-1) was marked by
contradictions and inconsistencies. Her version lacked coherence
and was not supported by material evidence.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:29 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26776] (3 of 5) [CRLR-582/2007]c. The medical evidence was inconclusive. Although semen was
detected on a salwar seized after more than one year, no semen
or injury was found on the prosecutrix or in her vaginal swabs.
PW-8, the medical officer, confirmed the absence of any signs of
recent sexual activity or violence.
d. PW-4 Vimla’s evidence was hearsay and lacked probative value.
PW-6 Ashwaram turned hostile during trial and failed to support
the prosecution.
e. The evidence suggested the existence of an underlying civil
dispute concerning land, raising the possibility of a false
implication driven by personal vendetta.
f. The prosecutrix, a 30-year-old married woman, failed to inspire
confidence through her narrative. Her conduct and the
circumstances as described did not establish beyond reasonable
doubt that she was subjected to sexual assault.
3. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of revisional
jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. Unlike appellate
jurisdiction under Section 386 CrPC, where both factual and legal
findings can be reassessed comprehensively, the revisional
jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, propriety, and
correctness of the findings of the court below.
3.1. In the instant case, the trial was conducted before a
competent court, and the judgment was rendered after due
appreciation of the evidence on record. No illegality, perversity, or
misappreciation of material evidence is evident in the impugned
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:29 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26776] (4 of 5) [CRLR-582/2007]judgment. The conclusion of the trial court is supported by cogent
reasoning, and there exists no basis for judicial interference.
3.2. It is well settled that an accused enjoys a presumption of
innocence, which stands reinforced upon acquittal by a reasoned
judgment. The appellate or revisional court must exercise caution
and restraint while re-evaluating an acquittal. In the absence of
grave irregularity, misapplication of law, or palpable error in the
appreciation of evidence, such findings should not be disturbed.
3.3. In Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal
No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down the principles governing interference in appeals
against acquittal. These include:
i) Comprehensive and impartial appreciation of evidence is crucial;
ii) Selective reliance on evidence is impermissible;
iii) If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should
ordinarily prevail;
iv) A plausible view taken by the trial court should not be lightly
disturbed;
v) In cases of reversal, the appellate court must address each
finding and reasoning of the trial court;
vi) Interference is warranted only in instances of clear illegality,
perversity, or factual error.
Applying these principles, and upon careful scrutiny of the
trial court record and findings, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the acquittal of the accused is neither contrary to law
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:29 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26776] (5 of 5) [CRLR-582/2007]
nor unsupported by the evidence on record. The trial court’s
assessment appears judicious and reasonable in light of the facts
and legal standards.
4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merit
and stands dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated
14.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 126/2006 is affirmed.
All pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
5. Let the record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
3-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:26:29 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)