Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Manohar Singh vs Vitthalbhai (2025:Rj-Jd:28428) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28428]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 302/2022
Manohar Singh S/o Sh. Bhawani Singh, Aged About 64 Years,
Village Loor, Jaswantpura, Dist. Jalore. Presently R/o 343,
Adarsh Nagar, Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Vitthalbhai S/o Shri Shamji, B/c Patel, R/o Vada Gaon
Rajpura, Teh. Dhansura, P.s. Vada Gaon, Dist.
Sambarkantha (Guj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/07/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
17.12.2021, passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi in Cr. Appeal No.69/2020, by which the
appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld
the judgment dated 08.01.2019, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr. Case No.279/2016 (CIS
No.409/2016) whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2015 the petitioner-
complainant filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28428] (2 of 5) [CRLR-302/2022]
Magistrate, Sirohi against the accused-respondent No.1 in respect
of a fraud committed by him with the petitioner/complainant while
purchasing a plot, which was reserved to temple. The said
complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Upon which, the Police registered
an FIR against the accused-respondent No.1 and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.1. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges. The accused-respondent No.1 denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined three
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondent No.1 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 08.01.2019 acquitted the accused-
respondent No1 from the aforesaid offences.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No1, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.12.2021.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondent No.1 from offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence
against him for commission of the alleged offence. While passing
the impugned judgments, the learned courts below did not
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28428] (3 of 5) [CRLR-302/2022]
consider the documentary evidence as well as other aspects of the
matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgments
deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent
No.1 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and
perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and
the judgments passed by the courts below.
On perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that the
learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments have
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced
before it in right perspective. There are major contradictions,
omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses.
The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-
respondent No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the
learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.1 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC.
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(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28428] (4 of 5) [CRLR-302/2022]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.
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.”
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 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 judgments under
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28428] (5 of 5) [CRLR-302/2022]
challenge. The learned courts below have rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.1 from the offences. The orders passed by
the learned courts below are detailed and reasoned orders and the
same do not warrant any interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
76-MS/-
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:37:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)