Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Suresh @ Seumal And Ors … on 12 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 352/1995
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Suresh @ Seumal S/o Dhannumal
2. Narendra @ Nandu S/o Dhannumal
Both B/c Sindhi, R/o Barmer, PS City Kotwali, Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
12/08/2025
BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 05.01.1995, passed by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No.40/1993,
whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents
from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A IPC.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 12.08.1993, complainant Nanak Ram (PW-9)
submitted a written report at Police Station City Kotwali, Barmer
to the effect that about 8 or 9 years ago, marriage of his sister
Smt. Laxmi was solemnized with respondent No.1 Suresh @
Seumal. During the marriage life of his sister, her husband,
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
brother-in-law and mother-in-law used to beat and torture her for
dowry. On 09.08.1993, the complainant was informed by his sister
Smt. Laxmi on telephone that about half an hour ago, she was
brutally beaten by the accused-respondents for not bringing
dowry. On such information, the complainant reached at Barmer
on 12.08.1993 where he found his sister dead. It was alleged that
the accused-respondents poisoned his sister for dowry.
On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered a case against
the accused-respondents and started investigation. On completion
of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused
respondents for offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A
IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and
sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twelve witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in
support of its case.
The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, four witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-
4.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 05.01.1995 acquitted the accused-respondents
from offence under Sections 302, 498-A IPC. Hence this appeal
preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-
respondents.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
Vide order dated 02.02.2009, the present criminal appeal
qua accused Vidhya Devi had been dismissed as abated upon her
death.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the
learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the
witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave
and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents
from the offence under Sections 302, 498-A IPC. It is further
contended that this case is primarily based on circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution witnesses have specifically
mentioned that the deceased Smt. Laxmi died due to poison given
by the accused respondents. According to the postmortem report,
viscera of the deceased Smt. Laxmi was preserved, which was
sent for FSL and according to the FSL report (Ex-17), presence of
monocrotophos insecticide was found in the body of the deceased
Smt. Laxmi. These evidence specifically prove that the deceased
Smt. Laxmi died due to poison given by the accused-respondents.
It is further submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
for dowry and during investigation, so many letters written by the
deceased Smt. Laxmi were recovered, which also prove the fact of
demand of dowry by the accused-respondents. But the learned
trial court discarded the aforesaid evidence as well as other
circumstantial evidence and acquitted the accused-respondents. It
is submitted that learned trial court while passing the impugned
judgment has neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution,
nor has applied its judicious mind, which resulted into loss of
substantial justice. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
being per se illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
this case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution
has failed to connect the accused-respondents with the alleged
crime by way of any circumstances. It is submitted that after
investigation, Police filed challan against the accused-respondents
for offence under Sections 306, 498A IPC, but the trial court
framed the charges for offences under Section 302, 498-A IPC. It
is further contended that some part of investigation was done by
Dy.S.P. Sandeep Singh, but neither the said Sandeep Singh was
examined by the prosecution before the trial court, nor the
documents prepared or investigated by the said Sandeep Singh
were exhibited. Further, the neighbors of the accused-respondents
were also not examined by the prosecution, on the contrary, they
were examined by the defence side. The neighbors specifically
deposed that the deceased Smt. Laxmi and accused Suresh @
Seumal were living happily and there is no question of any
demand of dowry and the deceased Smt. Laxmi had committed
suicide due to her ill health. Counsel submits that the learned trial
court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has
passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal after proper
appreciation of evidence available before it, which requires no
interfere from this Court.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well
as record of the case.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
we note that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there
are material contradictions, improvements and omissions in the
statement of the witnesses. Further, the marriage of the deceased
Smt. Laxmi taken place about 8 or 9 years ago and in these last
8-9 years, there was no complaint made by the complainant party
against the accused-respondents regarding harassment of
deceased Smt. Laxmi for dowry.
The FSL report shows that the deceased Smt. Laxmi died due
to consumption of insecticide. Further, some part of investigation
was done by Dy.S.P. Sandeep Singh, but the prosecution did not
examine him during the course of trial before the trial court.
Moreover, the neighbours were also not examined by the
prosecution and on the contrary, they were examined by the
defence side. The neighbours specifically deposed in their
statements that the deceased Smt. Laxmi and accused Suresh @
Seumal were residing happily and deceased used to visit their
house and she never ever made complaint about the ill-treatment
given by the accused-respondents.
On meticulous examination of the evidence, it appears that
there is no connecting evidence available on record against the
accused-respondents. The prosecution has also failed to produce
any evidence on record which can prove the involvement of the
accused-respondents in the death of deceased Smt. Laxmi.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,
while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere
with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based
on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and
involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such
circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and
substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the
acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this
principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing
the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial
errors in the acquittal order. these are:-
21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah &
Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view
it was observed:
“8. … This being an appeal against acquittal, this
Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of
the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation
of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage
of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible
view this Court would not be justified in interfering
with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and
if two views are possible and the High Court had
chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then
also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court.”
22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in
Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020)
11 SCC 174, it was observed:
“190. … Reversal of a judgment and order of
conviction and acquittal of the accused should not
ordinarily be interfered with unless such
reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other
words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if
the court finds that no person properly instructed in
law could have upon analysis of the evidence on
record found the accused to be “not guilty”. …”
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay
Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 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.”
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its
case against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections
302, 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner/State
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35925-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-352/1995]
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 judgment passed by the learned trial court is
detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified. Therefore, the same
does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality warranting any
interference from this Court.
With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no
substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
12-MS/-
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)