[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Budha Ram vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:32501) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32501]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 287/2009
Budha Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Purohitasani, PS
Padu Kalla, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Dungar Singh S/o Mangu Singh,
3. Nen Singh S/o Kalu Singh,
4. Hanuman Singh S/o Kalyan Singh,
5. Jai Singh S/o Kalyan Singh,
6. Narpat Singh S/o Dungar Singh
7. Banshi Singh S/o Prem Singh,
8. Shankar Singh S/o Kalu Singh,
9. Ganga Singh S/o Dungar Singh,
All B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Purohitansani, PS Padu Kalla, District
Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
Mr. Vishwajeet Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/07/2025
Learned AAG has submitted a report dated 22.07.2024
received from the SHO, PS Padu Kallan, District Nagaur informing
that accused-respondents No.3 Nen Singh and No.4 Hanuman
Singh have passed away. The said report is hereby taken on
record.
In view of above, the revision petition qua accused-
respondents No.3 & 4 is dismissed as abated.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32501] (2 of 6) [CRLR-287/2009]
Instant revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 10.02.2009,
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.43/2006, whereby the learned
trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence
under Sections 147, 323, 336, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)
(x) of SC/ST Act.
Brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2005, the
complainant/petitioner gave a written report before the concerned
Police Station against the accused-respondents to the effect that
the accused respondents assaulted him and his family members
and also abused them with caste oriented language. Upon the said
report, Police registered the case against the accused-respondents
and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police
filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges. The accused-respondents denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in support of its
case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under
section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, the accused-
respondents examined four witnesses and exhibited certain
documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.02.2009 acquitted the accused-
respondent from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this
revision petition.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32501] (3 of 6) [CRLR-287/2009]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent for offence under Sections 147, 323, 336, 447 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. While passing the
impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the
evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective.
Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set
aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted
and sentenced for offence under Sections 147, 323, 336, 447 IPC
and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently opposed
the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, no
interference is required.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial 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.
There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence Sections 147, 323, 336, 447 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32501] (4 of 6) [CRLR-287/2009]
In the case of ‘Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,’ decided on September 5, 2011, 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.
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
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(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32501] (5 of 6) [CRLR-287/2009]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.”
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 trial 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.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32501] (6 of 6) [CRLR-287/2009]
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 order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
29-MS/-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link