Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Deva Ram vs Om Prakash @ Tinda Ram And Anr. … on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33708]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 101/2007
Deva Ram S/o Kuna Ram R/o Parava via Lalgarh, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Om Prakash @ Tinda Ram S/o Sagar Mal Jat R/o Parava,
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.
2. State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
30/07/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
28.06.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Ratangarh, in Sessions Case No.18/2005, whereby the
learned Judge acquitted the respondent No.1 from offences under
Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.2005, the petitioner/
complainant filed a report at Police Station, Sandwa to the extent
that his niece was kidnapped by the accused-respondent on the
previous night from his house. He took away his niece from his
house on the pretext of marriage. On this report, Police registered
the case against the accused-respondent No.1 and started
investigation.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33708] (2 of 6) [CRLR-101/2007]
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges
against accused-respondent No.1 for offences under Sections 366,
376 & 363 of IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and
certain documents were exhibited.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.06.2006 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.1 from offences under Sections 366, 376 and 363
IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of accused-
respondent No.1.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.1 regarding
commission of offence but the learned trial court has not
considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its
right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from
offence under Sections 366, 376 and 363 IPC. The learned trial
court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent No.1. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.1 ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections
7. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the learned trial court
has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which
requires no interference from this Court.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33708] (3 of 6) [CRLR-101/2007]
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment as well as considered the material available
on record.
9. 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.
The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-
respondent No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial
court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from
offence under Sections 366, 376 and 363 IPC.
10. 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 trial court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.1 from the offences. The order passed by
the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
11. 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
a compelling reason for interference. When the trial
Court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33708] (4 of 6) [CRLR-101/2007]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.
12. 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.”
13. 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.
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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33708] (5 of 6) [CRLR-101/2007]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.”
14. 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.
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.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
16. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33708] (6 of 6) [CRLR-101/2007]
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
8-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)