[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Tiku Ram vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:31257) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31257]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 817/2007
Tiku Ram S/o Rawat Ram R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil Merta, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Gopi Ram S/o Ummed R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil Merta, Dist.
Nagaur.
3. Babulal S/o Gopi Ram R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil Merta, Dist.
Nagaur.
4. Geeta @ Geetudi W/o Prahlad Ram R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil
Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
5. Kamli W/o Ramlal R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil Merta, Dist.
Nagaur.
6. Ramlal S/o Ummed Ram R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil Merta,
Dist. Nagaur.
7. Bhanwroo Ram S/o Gopi Ram R/o Ren ki Dhani, Tehsil
Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. RK Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
16/07/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
12.10.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr.
Appeal No.17/2004, whereby the learned appellate Judge
acquitted the respondents No.2 to 7 from offences under Sections
148, 341, 323 & 325/149 of IPC and set aside the order dated
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31257] (2 of 6) [CRLR-817/2007]
28.01.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta by which the respondents
No.2 to 7 have been convicted & sentenced for the offences
punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323 & 325/149 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.08.2001, the
complainant – Tiku Ram gave a Parcha Bayan alleging that at
about 3.30 PM he was going towards his dhani then at that time
the present accused respondents No.2 to 7 stopped him and
assaulted him with lathis. Due to which he got injured and
admitted to the hospital. On this report, Police registered the case
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 and started
investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges
against accused-respondents No.2 to 7 for offences under Sections
341, 148, 323 & 325/149 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were
examined and certain documents were exhibited.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.01.2003 convicted & sentenced the
accused-respondents No.2 to 7 for offences under Sections 341,
6. Against their conviction, the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 7
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31257] (3 of 6) [CRLR-817/2007]
came to be allowed vide judgment dated 12.10.2004 and the
appellate court while reversing the judgment of conviction of the
trial court, acquitted the respondents No.2 to 7 from Sections 341,
148, 323 & 325/149 IPC. Hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondents No.2 to 7
regarding commission of offence but the learned appellate court
has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter
in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent
Nos.2 to 7 from offence under Sections 341, 148, 323 & 325/149
IPC. The learned appellate court has committed grave error in
acquitting the accused-respondents No.2 to 7. Thus, the impugned
judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondents No.2 to 7 ought to have been convicted and
sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 148, 323 & 325/149
IPC.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective.
The petitioner has failed to prove its case against the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the
appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents
No.2 to 7 from offence under Sections 341, 148, 323 & 325/149
IPC.
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31257] (4 of 6) [CRLR-817/2007]
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. The learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from the offences. The order
passed by the learned appellate court is detailed and reasoned
order and the same does not warrant any interference from this
Court.
11. In the case of ‘Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479,’, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down
parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of
acquittal, by observing as under:
“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”,
for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is
a compelling reason for interference. When the trial
Court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
12. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31257] (5 of 6) [CRLR-817/2007]appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a
view which could not have been taken by the court of
competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”
Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay
Ram Tamta, reported (2025) 2 SCC 159,’ the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:–
“6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would
be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially
since the presumption of innocence that is always
available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the
acquittal and unless there are very substantive and
compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal
of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the
findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible
from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate
courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.
7. Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of
Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to
various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid
down the principle in the following manner in SCC para
24:
24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal
position that the interference with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be
warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same
is based on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and 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.”
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31257] (6 of 6) [CRLR-817/2007]
13. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/
revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the
other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no
substantial difference between an appeal/revision against acquittal
except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against acquittal
the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his
acquittal and if the view adopted by the appellate Court is a
reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well
set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be
interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
15. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
16-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:41:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link