State vs Sanwar Mal on 16 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

State vs Sanwar Mal on 16 July, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
             D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 506/2002

State of Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                              Versus
Sanwar Mal S/o Hanumanaram, B/C Jat, R/o Toomali Sankhan,
Tehsil-Rajgarh, P.S. Hamirwas, Distt.-Churu.
                                                   ----Respondent
                         Connected With
           D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 380/2002
Mahavir Prasad S/o Shri Tulcha Ram, R/o Khakhla-ki-Dhani,
Khetri Nagar, Jhunjhunu.
                                                      ----Appellant
                              Versus
State of Rajasthan.
Sanwar Mal S/o Hanumanaram, B/C Jat, R/o Toomali Sankhan,
Tehsil-Rajgarh, P.S. Hamirwas, Distt.-Churu.
                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)               :   Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)              :   Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Complainant                :   Mr. Bhagat Dadhich



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Judgment

Reserved on : 10/07/2025

Pronounced on : 16/07/2025

(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)

1. The present criminal appeal (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.

506/2002) by the State and revision petition (D.B. Criminal

Revision Petition No. 380/2002) by the complainant have been

preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 16.03.2002

whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted for the

offences alleged against him under Sections 498A, 304B and 302

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Since the common questions of facts

and law are involved, therefore, we propose to dispose of these

matters by this common judgment.

2. The facts in nut shell are that PW-1 Mahavir Prasad

submitted a report on 25.09.1998 (Ex. P/1) with an allegation that

his younger brother Mohar Singh is having three daughters. Out of

three daughters, two daughters are married whose names are

Sharda and Siriya. Both were married on 15.05.1995 to

Sanwarmal and Satyavir respectively who are sons of Hanuman

Ram resident of Toomali Sankhan. It was further stated that

Sharda after her marriage was residing at her matrimonial home

however the younger daughter Siriya was not going to her

matrimonial home as she was pursuing her studies. It is further

stated that after marriage Sanwarmal never used to come for

picking up Sharda or leaving her to her matrimonial home as he

was not happy. It was Hanuman Ram i.e. father of Sanwarmal

who usually came to pick up Sharda and also to drop her off at

maternal home. It was further stated that about two months prior

to the death of Sharda, Hanuman Ram i.e. the father of

Sanwarmal visited PW-2 Mohar Singh, father of Sharda and

conveyed that he needed Rs.20,000/- as Sanwarmal had to

deposit fee for pursuing B.Ed. It is stated that since the fee of

Rs.20,000/- could not be arranged therefore, Sharda was

subjected to harassment and cruelty and on 24.09.1998 she was

murdered by Sanwarmal alongwith persons namely Hanuman

Ram, Brother-Satvir, Jamnaram and wife of Jamnaram. Later he

by additional statement stated that he had no knowledge about

any dowry demand but his brother Mahavir Prasad told him after

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

death of Sharda that had he arranged Rs.20,000/- for B.Ed. as

dowry then perhaps Sharda would not have died.

3. On the basis of above allegation the police started

investigation. The father of deceased i.e. Mohar Singh (PW-2)

submitted an application before the Dy. Superintendent of Police

on 30.09.1998 (Ex. P/10). In the said application it was stated

that the incident which occurred on 24.09.1998 and in which

Sharda was murdered was on account of the fact that there was

consistent dowry demand and when the said dowry demand could

not be met by the parents, she was killed by her husband and her

in-laws. In the said letter, apart from non-fulfillment of dowry, the

factum of illicit relation of Sanwarmal with wife of Jamnaram was

also stated as a reason for murder of Sharda. The police after

investigation on the above FIR submitted challan and thereafter

the accused-respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences

under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC. The learned Trial

Court after recording evidence of 18 witnesses and 28 documents

and statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC as well as one

witness namely-Tilokaram as DW-1, acquitted the accused-

respondent for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302

IPC.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while

challenging the impugned judgment has made the following

submissions:

i. The PW-1 Mahavir Prasad deposed in his statement that

accused-respondent Sanwarmal had admitted his guilt. The

extra judicial confession made by accused Sanwarmal was in

presence of PW-2 Mohar Singh, Megh Singh, PW-10 Rajender,

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

PW-6 Devaram, PW-7 Jainarayan, PW-5 Prahalad, Udai Singh,

Sarwanram and Hari Ram. In view of the said extra judicial

confession been made by accused-respondent in presence of

PW-1 Mahavir Prasad and others there was no reason for the

learned trial Court to have acquitted the accused-respondent

for the alleged offences.

ii. The weapon used for committing crime i.e. ‘Kussa’ was

recovered from accused-respondent and the panchnama of

recovery proceedings were part of record as Exhibit P/27.

iii. The PW-11 Dr. R.K. Saraf clearly deposed that the death of

deceased-Sharda was on account of asphyxia caused due to

strangulation. The weapon used for strangulation by accused-

respondent was the Iron rod (Kussa) and therefore there was

no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story more particularly

when the weapon was recovered at the instance of accused-

respondent. Dr. R.K. Saraf also deposed that injury on the neck

could not have occurred on account of rope or chunni but

clearly stated that such injury could have occurred on the neck

only after being pressed strongly with a hard object. The

statement of Dr. R.K. Saraf and the persons before whom extra

judicial confession was made are fully corroborated and that

completes the prosecution story without there being any

doubt.

iv. The incident happened within seven years of marriage and

the place of incident is also the matrimonial home. The cruelty

and harassment and the consistent dowry demand is also

established.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

v. The motive of killing Sharda at the behest of accused-

respondent is also fully established by the prosecution as the

dowry demand was not met and secondly, the accused-

respondent was having illicit relation with wife of Jamnaram

and some how he wanted to get out of matrimonial ties with

Sharda and therefore in order to get her out of his way the

accused-respondent strangulated her and presented a picture

as if it was a case of accident wherein all of sudden the stone

slab fell from the roof and Sharda got injured and later

succumbed to those injuries and died. Further, PW-18 Hari

Ram Gehlot, the Investigating Officer, has deposed before the

Court that after investigation police concluded that accused-

respondent alone was responsible for committing offence

under Section 302 IPC.

4.1 In view of the submissions made above, the learned State

counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a serious

error in not appreciating the evidence available on record and

committed a grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent for

such heinous crime and as a matter of fact the prosecution

completely established its case and therefore accused-respondent

was required to be convicted for offences under Sections 498-A,

304-B and 302 IPC.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-

respondent made the following submissions:

i. There was no allegation for dowry demand in the first

complaint and after about six days the allegation of dowry

demand was added. That being so, the story is concocted one

on the face of it.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

ii. The extra judicial confession which is alleged to have been

made before PW-1 Mahavir Prasad and other witnesses was

also an after thought as there is no mention about any extra

judicial confession in the original complaint and the same was

added later.

iii. The contention of PW-1 Mahavir Prasad with regard to extra

judicial confession was not supported by PW-9 Roshanlal and

PW-10 Rajendra Kumar.

iv. All the witnesses who have supported extra judicial

confession and the prosecution story are interested witnesses.

v. There is a serious contradiction in the original complaint

submitted by PW-1 Mahavir Prasad, the statement recorded by

the police under Section 161 Cr.PC and the statement made

before the Court.

vi. The prosecution did not produce any independent witnesses

who could support the prosecution story with regard to

allegation of cruelty and harassment, quarrel between accused-

respondent Sanwarmal and Sharda, and with regard to the

commission of offence by the accused-respondent. Also,

prosecution could not establish the fact that the accused-

respondent was present at the house when the incident

occurred.

vii. The recovery of weapon i.e. ‘Kussa’ was in presence of two

witnesses namely PW-12 Ramjilal and Tarachand. As far as

Ramjilal PW-12 is concerned he turned hostile and the second

witness namely Tarachand was not produced by the prosecution

and that being so, the recovery of the ‘Kussa’ was not fully

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

established and does not come under the rigor of Section 27 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

viii. The recovery of ‘Kussa’ is itself doubtful. PW-1 and 2 stated

that when they had gone to the matrimonial home of Sharda

and had met Sanwarmal he had not only confessed and

admitted his guilt of killing Sharda but had even shown the

weapon ‘Kussa’ which had been used by him and thereafter the

said ‘Kussa’ was handed over to police. This version is not

supported by PW-18 Hariram, the Investigating Officer, who

stated that ‘Kussa’ was recovered at the instance of accused-

respondent on a different date (Ex. P/27).

ix. The FSL report does not indicate any blood on the weapon

recovered i.e. ‘Kussa’.

x. The statements of the witnesses were recorded after

considerable delay which indicates that the witnesses

exaggerated the story and improved their version so as to

ensure that accused-respondent was held guilty.

xi. The allegation that accused-respondent was having illicit

relation with wife of Jamnaram was not duly established with

corroborative evidence so as to impute motive.

xii. The witnesses who appeared as prosecution witnesses have

supported the version of the accused-respondent as made by

him under Section 313 CrPC, about the family members usually

staying in the agricultural field during crop season. This fact

further supports the version of the accused-respondent wherein

he stated that he was in agricultural field as it was crop season.

6. On the basis of the above submission, the counsel for the

respondent submitted that prosecution has completely failed to

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

establish its case. The chain of circumstances is not fully

established and in view of the evidence available on record, the

learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused-respondent

for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/complainant,

while reiterating the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for the State, further submitted that the accused-

respondent, in order to get benefit of the insurance policy, which

he got in the name of deceased Sharda, has killed her portraying

her death as an unnatural death because as per the policy

conditions of insurance policy (Ex.P/14A), if natural death of the

insured occurs (i.e. deceased Sharda), the nominee (i.e. accused-

respondent) will get Rs.1 lakh and if unnatural death occurs, then

the nominee will get double the amount, i.e. Rs.2 lakhs.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9. In the present case the incident occurred on 24.09.1998 and

oral report was lodged by PW-1 Mahavir Prasad on 25.05.1998 at

around 01:00 PM at Police Station Hamirwas. On perusal of the

FIR which was registered on the basis of the statement made by

Mahavir Prasad, it nowhere indicates about any dowry demand nor

about any extra judicial confession at the behest of accused-

respondent. Moreover, in the said complaint, there is no reference

or any allegation of illicit relation of accused-respondent with the

wife of Jamnaram. It is to be noted that as per the statement of

PW-1-Mahavir, on receiving the news that Sharda had died, he

along with PW-2 Mohar Singh and other persons went to the

matrimonial home of Sharda. It was further stated by Mahavir that

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

on being asked, Sanwarmal (accused) had accepted his guilt and

further stated that he had killed Sharda by strangulating her and

weapon used for committing such crime was ‘Kussa’.

9.1 It is further stated that thereafter PW-1 Mahavir Prasad went

to the police to submit his report. It is pertinent to note here that

if PW-1 Mahavir Prasad was already informed about the said

incident by Sanwarmal through an extra judicial confession and

also about the ‘Kussa’ i.e. the weapon used to commit crime, yet

all these facts were not disclosed in the FIR dated 25.09.1998.

Another fact which is infact very crucial to adjudicate the veracity

of the prosecution story is the letter dated 30.09.1998 (Ex. P/10)

which was submitted by PW-2 Mohar Singh wherein the allegation

of demand of Rs.20,000/- apart from scooter and refrigerator was

mentioned; further, the illicit relation between Sanwarmal and

Santosh (wife of Jamnaram) was also mentioned. It is to be noted

that when PW-1 Mahavir Prasad went to the matrimonial home of

Sharda, PW-2 Mohar Singh was also accompanying him and after

taking all details PW-1 Mahavir Prasad went to the Police Station

and that being so it becomes highly improbable that PW-1 Mahavir

Prasad would not have been told by Mohar Singh about any dowry

demand or any illicit relation at the time of lodging FIR. This

clearly indicates that the PW-2 Mohar Singh has attempted to

improve the story so as to ensure that accused-respondent was

held guilty for the offence alleged against him by narrating these

facts in his letter dated 30.09.1998 (Ex. P/10).

10. A perusal of the FIR dated 25.09.1998, the letter dated

30.09.1998, the statement of PW-1 Mahavir Prasad recorded by

the police under Section 161 Cr.PC and the statement made by

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

him before the Trial Court shows that there are serious omissions

and improvements and therefore, the testimony of PW-1 Mahavir

Prasad can not be held to be reliable.

11. The PW-1 Mahavir Prasad who was accompanied with PW-2

Mohar Singh i.e. the father of the deceased, though in his

statement claimed that accused-respondent Sanwarmal had

disclosed his guilt and also had shown the weapon i.e. ‘Kussa’

which was used by him for causing injury to Sharda, yet the

weapon was not disclosed in the FIR, therefore, it creates serious

doubt as to the trustworthiness of these two important witnesses.

11.1 The PW-2 Mohar Singh, who is the father of the deceased

Sharda, narrated the incident in the same manner as was stated

by PW-1 Mahavir Prasad. As a matter of fact, he stated that he,

Mahavir Prasad and other persons had gone to the matrimonial

home of Sharda after knowing about the incident. He also states

that extra judicial confession was made by Sanwarmal wherein he

had admitted the guilt and thereafter Mahavir Prasad had gone to

the Police Station to submit the report. It is also stated by PW-2

Mohar Singh that he also had gone alongwith Mahavir Prasad for

submitting complaint to the Police Station. If Mohar Singh went to

police station with Mahavir Prasad then it raises serious questions

as to why the important fact of dowry demand, illicit relation and

extra judicial confession was not disclosed to Mahavir Prasad.

11.2 PW-2 Mohar Singh further admits that the family members as

well as accused-respondent in the rainy season at the time of

cultivation stayed in the agricultural field. It is also admitted that

portion of the house is rented to coaching institute.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

12. The prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confession

made by accused-respondent while relying upon the statements of

PW-10 Rajender, PW-7 Jai Narayan, PW-5 Prahlad and PW-8

Ummaid Singh. However, these statements do not appear to be

reliable as these witnesses are interested witnesses and none of

them is an independent witness. Furthermore, in normal course it

is difficult to accept the preposition that accused-respondent

would admit his guilt and that too, in presence of those persons

who are family members of the deceased.

13. As far as the recovery of ‘Kussa’ i.e. the weapon which is

alleged to have been used by the accused-respondent is

concerned, it is noted that one of the witnesses to the said

recovery proceedings of the weapon was not produced in the

witness box and the second witness namely PW-12 Ramjilal turned

hostile. That apart, there is serious contradiction in the version as

to when the recovery was made. PW-1 Mahavir Prasad and PW-2

Mohar Singh deposed that on being asked, Sanwarmal had not

only narrated the story and had admitted the guilt but also had

shown the weapon ‘Kussa’ and at that moment itself the weapon

was handed over to the police. However, the Investigating Officer,

PW-18 Hari Ram Gehlot, stated that accused-respondent after

being arrested, voluntarily submitted that he could show the place

where he had kept the weapon. On his submission, he was taken

to his home on 01.10.1998 wherefrom he took out ‘Kussa’ and

handed it over to the police.

13.1 Furthermore, FSL report does not indicate that ‘Kussa’ had

any blood stains on it and therefore, the prosecution completely

failed to establish the fact that the ‘Kussa’ which was allegedly

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent was in fact

used by him while committing the crime in question.

14. It is pertinent to note here that none of the prosecution

witnesses were independent rather as a matter of fact, all are

interested witnesses. The prosecution could not produce any

evidence of the neighbours or independent persons who could

have established the presence of the accused-respondent at the

time of incident nor this fact could be established by producing

independent evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty,

harassment or any quarrel or dispute between Sanwarmal and

Sharda, so also the murder of deceased Sharda. In absence of any

independent witness, the prosecution could not establish its case

beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused-

respondent for the alleged offences.

15. Although PW-1 Mahavir Prasad and PW-2 Mohar Singh have

stated that extra judicial confession was made in presence of

PW-9 Roshan Lal and PW-10 Rajendra Kumar, however, they did

not confirm any such extra judicial confession being made in their

presence.

16. The prosecution in order to establish the motive behind the

commission of the crime by the accused respondent made the

allegation of illicit relation with Santosh apart from cruelty and

harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand,

however, the prosecution could not establish this fact. It is to be

noted that the allegation of illicit relation, at very first instance,

became doubtful as the same was missing in the FIR and

subsequent letter written to Dy. Superintendent of Police.

However, the same was introduced in the statement given by

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

PW-1 Mahavir Prasad under Section 161 Cr.PC and before the

Court. Apart from that, such allegation was otherwise not proved

nor such version was supported by the prosecution witnesses and

that being so the allegation of illicit relation of accused-respondent

with Santosh was not fully established.

17. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the

accused-respondent claimed that he was not at home when the

incident occurred. He explained that he owns agricultural land,

which includes an open well and a temporary shelter where he and

his family used to stay during the crop season. According to him,

they were staying in the agricultural field at the time of the

incident, and therefore, he was not present at his residence.

17.1 The prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that

accused-respondent was present at the place of incident by

leading any corroborative evidence, more particularly the evidence

of neighbours or any other independent witnesses who could have

established the fact that he was seen at home or he was seen

going home just prior to the incident. In absence of this, the

presence of the accused-respondent at the time of incident

becomes highly improbable and the prosecution was not able to

establish this fact beyond reasonable doubt that accused-

respondent was in fact present at the time when the incident

occurred.

18. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

revision-petitioner/complainant with regard to get the benefit of

the insurance policy (Ex.P/14A) is concerned, no evidence has

come on record which could establish the fact that the accused-

respondent murdered the deceased Sharda to get the benefit of

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

the insurance policy. Though the death of deceased Sharda was

unnatural but this fact also could not establish that it was a

murder to get the undue benefit of the insurance policy.

19. In view of the discussion made above what emerges out is

that there were major improvements by the complainant as well

as other witnesses. The presence of the accused-respondent at

the time of the incident was not established. The factum of extra

judicial confession was also not established as the same was not

supported by all the persons before whom the said statement was

made. It was even admitted by the prosecution witnesses that in

the crop season the family members of Hanuman Ram and the

accused-respondent used to stay in the agricultural field which

rather support the version of the accused-respondent which he

made under Section 313 Cr.PC. The recovery of weapon was also

not established. Even the FSL report does not indicate any blood

stain on ‘Kussa’ and therefore, the weapon which is alleged to

have been used was not corroborated by sufficient evidence. The

finding given by the learned trial Court as well as the reasons and

conclusion of the trial Court were examined and in view of the

evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality in the order

passed by the learned Trial Court. As a matter of fact, there was

no evidence against the accused-respondent so as to convict him

under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. The impugned judgment

therefore requires no interference.

20. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce

the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC 1252) and Babu Sahebagouda

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC

2252), as hereunder-:

Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):

“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive
of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal
and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):

“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section
378 of CrPC as follows:

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens
the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the trial
court is a possible view which could have been taken on
the basis of the evidence on record;

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment
of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the
accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the
following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on
a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on
record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record.”

21. Learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of

acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 498-A, 304-B

and 302 IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law,

because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect

that the judgment of the trial Court can be reversed by the

Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity

or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the

present case, the learned trial Court, before passing the impugned

judgment had examined each and every witnesses at a

considerable length and duly analyzed the documents produced

before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as

documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers

from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any

interference by this Court in the instant appeal.

22. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by

the learned trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30589-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLA-506/2002]

judgment of the learned trial Court demonstrates a legally

plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify

the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the

impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the

instant appeal.

23. Resultantly, the impugned order of acquittal of the accused-

respondent is maintained and hence, the appeal as well as

revision petition is dismissed.

24. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL), J. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

AbhishekK/skm/-

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:38:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)