Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kishan Lal vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:32453) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32453]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 257/2006
Kishan Lal S/o Pukhraj R/o Phalodi, Tehsil Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Kailash S/o Arjun Ram Suthar R/o 424, Shiv Colony,
Chandana Bhakar, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
3. Smt. Leela W/o Arjun Ram Suthar R/o 474, Shiv Colony,
Chandana Bhakar, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
4. Arjun Ram Suthar S/o Ganga Ram Suthar R/o 474, Shiv
Colony, Chandana Bhakar, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. Hanwant Singh Balot
Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/07/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
22.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.74/2005 whereby the
learned Judge acquitted the respondents No.2 to 4 from offence
under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.4 Arjun
Ram submitted a written report at Police Station inter alia alleging
that his son Kailash (respondent No.2) got married to Vineeta. In
the morning when he went to work, he was informed that his
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32453] (2 of 6) [CRLR-257/2006]
daughter-in-law Vineeta hanged herself to death. On this report,
Police registered an FIR and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charge against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to
4 for offence under Section 498A & 304-B IPC, who denied the
charge and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 14
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, 7 witnesses were examined.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned court below vide
impugned judgment dated 22.02.2006 acquitted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Section 498-A & 304-B
of IPC. Hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4
regarding commission of offence but the learned court below has
not considered the same in right perspective and acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. The learned court below has
committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2
to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
8. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4
submits that the learned court below has passed a detailed and
reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from
this Court.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32453] (3 of 6) [CRLR-257/2006]
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
10. On perusal of the impugned appellate judgment, it appears
that the learned court below while passing the impugned
judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter.
There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond all
reasonable doubts and thus, the learned court has rightly
acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under
Section 498A & 304-B of IPC.
11. 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 court below has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the offence under Section
498A & 304-B of IPC. The order passed by the learned court below
is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant
any interference from this Court.
12. 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(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32453] (4 of 6) [CRLR-257/2006]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.
13. 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.”
14. 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.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32453] (5 of 6) [CRLR-257/2006]
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.”
15. 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 Court below 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.
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32453] (6 of 6) [CRLR-257/2006]
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
17. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
9-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 29/07/2025 at 09:26:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link