[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Kanta Devi Mandovara vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32466) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32466]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 859/2022
Smt. Kanta Devi Mandovara W/o Lt. Sh. Krishan Gopal
Mandovara (Mahajan), Aged About 75 Years, R/o H.no. A-363,
Mandovara Palace, Vidyut Nagar, Banswali Gali, P.s. Subhash
Nagar, Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sohan Lal S/o Nsh. Shankar Lal Vaishnav, R/o H.no. G
186, Subhash Nagar, Paldi Road, P.s. Subhash Nagar,
Bhilwara.
3. Lav Kumar S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Vaishnav, R/o H.no. G
186, Subhash Nagar, Paldi Road, P.s. Subhash Nagar,
Bhilwara.
4. Kush Kumar S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Vaishnav, R/o H.no. G
186, Subhash Nagar, Paldi Road, P.s. Subhash Nagar,
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudheer Sarupariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Satish Purohit,
Mr. Shridhar Purohit,
Mr. Ramsukh Mali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
23/07/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated
28.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women
Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in criminal appeal No.03/2021 whereby
the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 19.12.2020 passed by
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32466] (2 of 6) [CRLR-859/2022]
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhilwara in
Regular Criminal Case No.968/2011 by which the respondents
No.2 to 4 have been acquitted from the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 447 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2006, the petitioner
Smt Kanta Devi filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhilwara alleging that she purchased two plots through a
registered sale-deed dated 13.01.1995, since then she has been
in continuous possession of the aforesaid plots and has also
constructed boundary wall. The accused-respondents created
forged documents of the aforesaid plots and got issued the patta
illegally and encroached the property. On this report, Police
registered the case against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4
and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges
against accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 & 447 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 were 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 19.12.2020 acquitted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 4 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32466] (3 of 6) [CRLR-859/2022]
471 & 447 of IPC granting them the benefit of doubt due to
insufficient evidence.
6. Against their acquittal, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed
vide judgment dated 28.05.2022 and the appellate court has
affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is
ample evidence against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4
regarding commission of offence but the learned appellate court
as well as learned trial Court have not considered the evidence
and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and
acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 447 IPC. The learned courts below
have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents
No.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 ought to
have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections
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 courts below while passing the impugned judgment have
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before them in its right
perspective. The petitioner has failed to prove its case against the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and
thus, the courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32466] (4 of 6) [CRLR-859/2022]
respondents No.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,
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 appellate court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from the offences. The order
passed by the learned appellate 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
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:–
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32466] (5 of 6) [CRLR-859/2022]
“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.”
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
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(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32466] (6 of 6) [CRLR-859/2022]of the accused is possible from the evidence available
on record.”
13. 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 appellate
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.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
15. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
104-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link