Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sonam @ Sonali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13744) on 12 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13744]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 710/2021
Sonam @ Sonali D/o Chandrabhan W/o Vikram Kumar Valimi,
Aged About 26 Years, Ravidas Nagar, Ward No. 45,
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vikram Kumar S/o Sh. Baman Kumar Valimi, Namdev
Marg, Dhivar Colony, Ganesha Basti, Gali No. 6, Near
Valmiki Mandir, Bhatinda (Punjab). Second Address-
Vikram Kumar S/o Baman Kumar Valimiki At Present
Safai Karmachari, Nagar Nigam, Bhatinda (Punjab).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Himmat Jagga
Ms. Tania Chugh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 17.02.2021, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Sriganganagar, in Cr. Appeal No.229/2019 whereby the learned
appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment
dated 25.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sriganganagar in Cr. Regular Case No.57/2019, whereby the
learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence
under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13744] (2 of 5) [CRLR-710/2021]
Brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.2015, the petitioner-
complainant filed a complaint against five persons including the
respondent No.2, before the concerned court for offence under
Sections 498-A & 406 IPC. The concerned court sent the said
complaint under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. for investigation before the
concerned Police Station. Upon which, the concerned Police
Station registered the FIR No.140/2015 and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court
framed the charges against the accused-respondent No.2 for
offence under Section 498A & 406 IPC, who denied the charges
and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as six witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no evidence was produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.06.2019 acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC.
Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.02.2021.
Hence this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has
submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned
courts below did not consider the evidence and other aspects of
the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13744] (3 of 5) [CRLR-710/2021]
respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. The
learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve
to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2
ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid
offences.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 after due appreciation of the evidence. Thus, the
impugned judgments are just and proper warranting no
interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments as well as considered the material available
on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the trial court as
well as appellate court, 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 evidence
produced before them in its 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.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus,
the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 498A & 406 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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13744] (4 of 5) [CRLR-710/2021]
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.
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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13744] (5 of 5) [CRLR-710/2021]
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
challenge. 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
133-MS/-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)