Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Logar (2025:Rj-Jd:33952-Db) on 1 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 40/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
Logar S/o Aala Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mokla Talab,
Police Station Bhinder, District Udaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
01/08/2025
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG)
The appellant State has filed the present criminal leave to
appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 16.05.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Sessions
Case No. 138/2020 whereby, the trial court acquitted the
respondent from offence under Section 302 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Rupali
lodged a written report on 21.04.2020 at the Police Station
Bhindar, stating therein that in the afternoon, when her husband
Nathu lal departed for village Devre, he saw that the goats of her
brother-in-law Logar and Kalu were damaging the crops. When her
husband complained, the accused Logar and Kalu started an
altercation and suddenly, Logar attacked her husband with a stone
which hit stomach of Nathu lal and he fell down. The sons of
complainant Kailash, Uda, Roopa and elder daughter came to
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]
rescue and took him Bhindar hospital from where he was referred
to Udaipur on 26.04.2024 but the day before, Nathu lal died.
On this report, an FIR No. 48/2020 was lodged and
investigation commenced. The police filed chargesheet against the
respondent accused for offence under Sections 302 IPC.Thereafter,
charges were framed against the respondent for offence under
Sections 302 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined eleven
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who pleaded
not guilty.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the
respondent from offence mentioned above vide judgment dated
16.05.2023, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Court below
without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted
the respondent on the ground of minor contradictions. It is
argued that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the
accused Logar hit the deceased with a stone due to which
deceased sustained injury on his stomach and he later, succumbed
to the injury during treatment. The doctor who conducted the
postmortem has also specifically stated that the cause of death is
shock due to injury on stomach. He, therefore, contends that the
guilt of the accused stands established beyond doubt and thus,
the present appeal may be allowed and the accused respondent
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]
may be convicted and sentenced appropriately.
Per contra, counsel for the accused/respondent contends that
the allegations are unsubstantiated by any corroborative evidence.
All the alleged eye witnesses are the family members of the
complainant and deceased, hence not trustworthy. The case of
the prosecution is that the accused had hit the deceased with a
stone but neither the alleged stone was recovered nor any FSL
was conducted in this regard. The doctor in his cross-examination
has mentioned that the injury could be caused by falling also. It is
submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the learned Trial Court
has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under
Section 302 IPC.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through
the record.
In the present case, the allegation against the accused
respondent is that he threw a stone at the deceased which hit his
stomach causing injury on his abdomen, who later on died under
treatment. The prosecution has relied upon eleven prosecution
witnesses, out of which PW/1 Smt. Rupali, PW/4 Kailash, PW/7
Roop lal are the eye witnesses. All these witnesses are family
members of deceased and they have stated that during
altercation, the accused respondent suddenly threw a stone which
injured Nathu lal but no independent witness fortifying the
allegations has been produced by the prosecution. Further, the
alleged weapon i.e. stone has also not been recovered. In this
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]
regard, the investigating officer PW/11 Devendra Singh stated that
the stone could not be recovered or produced because it was a
rocky plain area and the stone could not be identified. Although,
PW/7 Roop lal has stated that he had shown the stone to the
investigating officer. From the evidence on record so also finding
arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the court below
came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the
accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
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
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:
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]
“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”. …”
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(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the State 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
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33952-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLLA-40/2025]
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:13:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)