[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:30145]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 357/2007
Buda Ram S/o Shri Tulsa Ramji B/c Meghwal, R/o Ward No.3, Nr.
Agrasen Bhawan By Pass Rd., 3rd Fatak, Balotra District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Babu Lal S/o Virdha B/c Prajapat, R/o Samdari Rd., Balotra
3. Satish S/o Narsingh B/cMali, R/oWard No.3, Balotra.
4. Bajrang S/o Narsingh B/c Mali, R/o Ward No.3, Balotra
5. Pukhraj S.o Dalichand B/c Khandelwal, R/o Agarwal Colony,
Balotra
6. Om Prakash S/o Chunnilla B/c Mali R/o Ward No.3, Maliyon Ka
Bas, Balotra
7. Raju Parihar S/o Chunnilal B/c Mali R/o Ward No.3, Maliyon
Ka Bas, Balotra
8. Chhaganlal S/o Kana Ram B/c Mali R/o Ward No.3, Balotra
9. Raju @ Rajkumar S/o Pukhraj Khandelwal, R/o Agarwal
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Saini PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
09/07/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner–complainant of the original
proceedings–being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2007
passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Balotra in
Sessions Case No. 32/2004, whereby all the accused-respondents
were acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 447, 427 of the
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (2 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The petitioner happens to be the complainant of a criminal
case who lodged a complaint Ex.P/3 on 02.01.2004 against the
respondents No.2 to 9. He stated in the complaint that he along
with his family was residing in a one-room rented premises
situated on the plot of Jaynarayan Toni, near Railway Gate No. 3,
Ward, Balotra. On 31.01.2003, at about 3:00 PM, the accused
persons namely Om Prakash, Raju, Pepo, Babulal, Pukhraj, Raju,
Chhaganlal, Satish, Bajrang, and others–allegedly trespassed into
his house, armed with sticks, with the intention to forcibly evict
him. The accused persons dragged him inside the house,
vandalized household articles, and scattered belongings. When he
raised objection, caste-related abusive language was allegedly
hurled at him, including remarks asserting that a person of his
caste was not entitled to reside in such premises. Thereafter, the
accused said to have pushed the complainant, demolished the
boundary wall, and caused further damage to the property.
2.1. Despite intervention by neighbours–namely Titaram
Agarwal, Akbarattva, Kishorilal Toni, Babulal, Gautamchand
Pannalal, and Govind Mali–the accused did not relent and also
damaged another boundary wall belonging to the complainant,
while issuing threats to his life.
2.2. On account of police inaction, the complainant filed a private
complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Balotra, who forwarded the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to
the Police Station Balotra for investigation. Upon completion of the
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (3 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused
persons for offences under Sections 143, 447, and 427 IPC, and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the
accused were charged accordingly. They denied the allegations
and faced trial.
2.3. After trial the learned trial Court vide judgment dated
16.03.2007 acquitted the respondents-accused. Hence, being
aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the petitioner complainant
has preferred the instant revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record of the case.
3.1. The trial court, after detailed appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution
had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential
ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Notably, it was
observed:
3.2. There existed no reliable or credible evidence to establish
that the complainant was in peaceful and settled possession of the
alleged premises, either as a tenant or otherwise.
3.3. The site inspection memo (Ex.P/4) and map of the spot
prepared on 10.01.2004 did not corroborate the version that
household articles belonging to the complainant were scattered or
damaged at the site. Neither was the complainant able to
demonstrate that he or his family were in actual residence at the
time of the alleged occurrence.
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (4 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
3.4. Witnesses relied upon by the prosecution–namely PWs
Pannalal, Babulal, Akbar, and Gautamchand–were found to be
interested witnesses, having acquired adjacent plots themselves
through unregistered and disputed agreements purportedly
executed by one Chunnilal, whose ownership over the land itself
remained doubtful.
3.5. The testimony of PW-10 Buddharam (complainant) was
inconsistent, and he himself admitted that he had not sustained
visible injuries nor got any medical examination conducted,
despite alleging physical assault. He further conceded that he was
prompted to lodge the case at the behest of Jainarayan, and that
no contemporaneous police complaint was entertained.
4. The trial court has, with appropriate judicial reasoning, held
that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 143, 447, and
427 IPC could not be made out due to lack of cogent evidence
about exclusive possession, actual damage, or illegal assembly
with common intent. Further, as far as the offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the court rightly held that
mere utterance of caste-based language, without corroborated
intention to humiliate the complainant in public view, could not
sustain a conviction.
4.1. It is also pertinent to observe that the prosecution was
unable to explain the inordinate delay in filing the complaint
(Ex.P/3), and this unexplained delay coupled with absence of
independent, disinterested witnesses who were natural inhabitants
of the surrounding locality, substantially weakened the prosecution
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (5 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
case. The surrounding record reveals that several of the
prosecution witnesses were litigants in possession-related civil
disputes over nearby plots, rendering their testimony tainted with
personal motive.
4.2. The trial court further noted that the alleged incident
involved a disputed title and possession over a plot, which had
already been subjected to multiple transactions based on informal
and possibly forged agreements, and such civil disputes had been
cleverly sought to be criminalized by invoking the provisions of the
SC/ST Act against persons who were in fact the legal heirs of the
purported landowner Chunnilal. Such an attempt to misuse the
penal provisions of the Atrocities Act cannot be permitted without
credible and corroborated evidence of humiliation solely on
account of caste, in public view.
5. It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further
fortification after their acquittal from the Court of competent
jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and should show
reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned judgment of
acquittal. It should be kept in mind that until and unless, it is
observed that the judgment of acquittal, is a product of total non-
consideration of the material brought on record or it is against
any provision of law or is concluded upon misappreciation of
evidence; the appellate Court should not interfere in the finding
reached by the trial Court. If after re-appreciation of evidence, a
stage comes where two views seem possible, the Court should
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (6 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
tend to accept the view favourable to the accused. Recently the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the matter of
Mallappa & Ors.Versus State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal
NO. 1162/2011 decided on 12.02.2024) had an occasion to
observe common principle in respect of issue involved in like cases
and the principle which should apply while deciding an appeal
from acquittal have been summarized; the relevant Para No.36 is
reproduced as under :-
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All
the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal
law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The
principles which come into play while deciding an appeal
from acquittal could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive
– inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result
in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that
two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal
in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court
for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity
or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
In view of the above and upon scrutiny of the material of the
present case, the findings arrived at by the trial court are well-
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30145] (7 of 7) [CRLR-357/2007]
reasoned, consistent with the record, and based upon a thorough
appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary. The court
below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to extend the benefit of
doubt to the accused persons. There appears to be no perversity,
illegality, or non-application of mind in the impugned judgment
warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
6. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm view
that the revision petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed. The trial court has appropriately appreciated the
material on record, and the conclusion of acquittal is just, legal
and proper.
7. Accordingly, there is no force in the revision petition, the
same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of
acquittal judgment dated 16.03.2007 passed by the learned
Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),
(Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case No.32/2004 is
affirmed.
8. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
6-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link