Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Ravindra Kumar And Ors on 25 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 130/2001
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar S/o Baliram, R/o Ward No.7, Suratgarh.
2. Gulshan S/o Khajanchand, R/o Ward No.8, Suratgarh.
3. Kishanlal S/o Udaram, R/o Ward No.5, Suratgarh.
4. Omprakash @ Om Kabadia S/o Jagganath, R/o Ward
No.10, Suratgarh.
5. Milakhraj @ Milkhi S/o Jaganath, R/o Suratgarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manisha Phophalia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on : 15/07/2025
Pronounced on : 25/07/2025
(PER HON’BLE BENIWAL, J.)
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal
dated 17.07.2000 passed by the learned Special Additional District
and Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar, in
Sessions Case No.133/1997 (39/1999) (6/2000) (State of
Rajasthan Vs. Ravindra Kumar and Ors.), whereby the accused-
respondents have been acquitted of the charges against them
under Sections 201, 498-A, 468 and Section 302 read with Section
120-B IPC.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (2 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 1993 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2001.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant-State
informed that during pendency of the present appeal, respondent
Nos.2 and 5 died.
3.1. In view of the above submission, the present appeal against
the respondent Nos.2 and 5 stands abated.
4. The facts in brief are that an accident occurred on
06.01.1993 on account of which one Neelam sustained grievous
injuries and was admitted in hospital, however, during treatment,
she passed away on 09.01.1993. Initially, an FIR was lodged on
06.01.1993 by accused-respondent No.1 who happened to be
husband of Neelam. In the said FIR, it was alleged that he was
travelling with his wife Neelam and had stopped as the clothes
(Saree) of his wife were likely to get stuck in the Scooter and they
would have fallen down. It is stated that when the Scooter was
stopped and Neelam got down, a Jeep which was being driven in
rash and negligent manner, hit deceased Neelam and ran away.
On account of the said incident, deceased Neelam sustained
injuries and later, she succumbed to injuries and died on
09.01.1993. Later, a complaint dated 15.01.1993 (Ex. P/24) was
filed by PW-10 Ramesh kumar Nagpal i.e. brother of the deceased,
wherein it was alleged that Neelam did not die because of an
accident rather she was murdered. The allegation was leveled
against the husband of the deceased namely Ravindra Kumar, who
is the accused-respondent No.1 and four other persons against
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (3 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
whom it was alleged that they conspired and planned the entire
incident.
4.1. On the above complaint, the matter was investigated. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 201, 498-A,
468 and Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against the
present accused-respondents.
4.2. In trial, as many as 35 witnesses and 62 documents were
produced by the prosecution and in defence, DW-1 Narpat Singh
and 10 documents were produced. The learned Trial Court after
appreciating the evidence available on record proceeded to acquit
the accused-respondents from the charges under Section 302 read
with Section 120-B, 201, 498-A and 468 IPC while holding that
prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State while challenging the
impugned judgment made the following submissions:-
(i) the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused-
respondents has not appreciated the evidence available on record
and has proceeded to acquit the accused-respondents while
ignoring the fact that the prosecution has established its case
beyond reasonable doubt;
(ii) the prosecution by leading cogent evidence established the
fact that there was consistent demand of dowry after marriage.
Counsel placed reliance on statements of PW-10 Ramesh and PW-
31 Raj Kumar and submitted that in one of the ‘Panchayat’,
accused-respondent No.1-Ravindra Kumar had accepted his guilt
and that being so, it was a clear case of dowry demand at the
behest of accused-respondent No.1. Out of the wedlock of the
deceased Neelam and respondent No.1, one child was born and
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (4 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
even after his birth, the harassment of accused-Ravindra Kumar
towards deceased Neelam continued. Not only this, accused used
to threaten deceased Neelam that she should leave him as he
wanted to get engaged in another marriage;
(iii) the prosecution has fully established the allegation of
harassment and has also exhibited a letter dated 03.08.1992
(Ex.P/23) written by the deceased Neelam wherein she had
conveyed that accused-respondent No.1 was harassing her and
further stated that he had prepared a forged death certificate of
Neelam and would kill her in order to marry someone else;
(iv) six months before the death of Neelam, a ‘Panchayat’ was
convened, wherein also accused had threatened to kill her. That
being so, the motive was very clear and the accused-respondent
No.1 somehow wanted to get out of the matrimonial ties and for
this reason, the accused-respondents conspired and hired a Jeep
bearing No. H.R.F. 3836 and paid Rs.50,000/- for carrying out the
fake accident on 06.01.1993 on Bikaner-Suratgarh Road;
(v) PW-7 Surendra Godara was eye-witness to the accident
which occurred on 06.01.1993 and he has clearly deposed in his
statement that he had seen one Jeep hitting deceased Neelam and
after the said incident, he ran towards the spot and also offered
help to take deceased to the hospital, however, accused-
respondent No.1 declined to accept any such help and rather
stated that another Jeep is coming in which deceased was taken
to hospital. The statement given by the PW-7 Surendera Godara is
supported by PW-6 Gauri Shankar who deposed that he had seen
the Jeep in which deceased Neelam was taken to the hospital;
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (5 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
(vi) PW-10 Ramesh who is brother of the deceased, has stated
that there was consistent dowry demand and deceased Neelam
was subjected to cruelty and harassment at her matrimonial home
and more particularly by the accused-respondent No.1;
(vii) the motive and purpose of planning the murder of deceased
Neelam by accused-respondent No.1 was fully established as there
was evidence on record to show that Ravindra Kumar had already
married to one Saroj Bala (PW-3) during the lifetime of deceased
Neelam and the factum of said marriage was duly established by
statements of PW-24 Sunder Lal Pujari and Ex.P/12 i.e. a forged
death certificate of deceased Neelam which was prepared by the
accused-respondent No.1 to get out of the hurdle of first
marriage. In view of the clear motive, it is established beyond
doubt that accused-respondent No.1 somehow wanted to kill
Neelam so as to happily live with one Saroj Bala;
(viii) the PW-3 Saroj Bala though denied her signature on Ex.P/10
i.e. the affidavit filed for marriage with accused-respondent No.1,
on registered sale deed i.e. Ex.P/28 and application for divorce for
earlier marriage i.e. Ex.P/14, however, there was clear evidence to
establish the guilt of Ravindra Kumar;
(ix) the prosecution established its case through recovery of the
jeep bearing No. H.R.F. 3836 and such recovery was at the
instance of accused Om Prakash. The accused-Ravindra Kumar
and Gulshan had shown the place of incident to the police in front
of other witnesses. The investigation was made twice which is
proved from the statement of PW-35 K. Narsimharao. First
investigation was done in a faulty manner and for such
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (6 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
investigation, DW-1 Narpat Singh was even suspended and had to
face disciplinary inquiry.
5.1. While making the above submissions, the counsel for the
appellant-State submitted that the impugned judgment deserves
to be reversed and the accused-respondents are required to be
declared guilty for the charged offences.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
respondents, made the following submissions:-
(i) the marital relation between the accused-respondent No.1
and the deceased was good;
(ii) Neelam died on account of the unfortunate accident which
occurred on 06.01.1993 when she and accused-respondent No.1
were travelling together on a scooter and they halted for a while
for adjusting the ‘Saree’ of Neelam and at that point of time,
unfortunately, a Jeep hit her due to which she suffered injury and
ultimately expired in hospital on 09.01.1993. The prosecution had
concocted a story with the allegation that accused Ravindra Kumar
hatched a conspiracy along with other co-accused persons to kill
deceased Neelam, however, the prosecution completely failed to
lead reliable evidence so as to establish that it was a pre-planned
murder. In absence of any such evidence, the learned Trial Court
rightly proceeded to acquit the respondents;
(iii) the conduct of the accused Ravindra Kumar after the incident
also does not indicate that he intended to kill Neelam. The
evidence on record suggests that after the accident, accused-
respondent No.1 took Neelam to nearby hospital and also called
PW-29 Dr. Vijay Prakash Beniwal to immediately attend his wife
and give her medical treatment. Such conduct also does not
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (7 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
support the prosecution story that respondent No.1 wanted to kill
deceased Neelam. Furthermore, PW-3 Gauri Shankar stated that
he had seen accused-respondent No.1 helping her wife to shift her
in jeep and took her to hospital and later he saw accused-
respondent in hospital and he was running here and there to treat
her wife Neelam;
(iv) the complainant submitted a complaint on 15.01.1993 (Ex.
P/24) after a delay of about 10 days from the date of incident and
no explanation is available on record to suggest any justification
for such delay. The allegation of dowry demand and cruelty has
been levelled which is nothing but an afterthought so as to
somehow involve the accused-respondent No.1 in the crime;
(v) the Ex.P/23 i.e. the letter which is said to have been written
by the deceased Neelam has not been proved;
(vi) the prosecution story with regard to the second marriage
was also not found to be reliable as most of the witnesses who
were produced at the behest of the prosecution to establish the
factum of the second marriage turned hostile;
(vii) the recovery of Jeep used in the said incident was not proved
as the witnesses to the recovery proceedings of the jeep also
turned hostile;
(viii) there was no eye-witness to the accident which occurred on
06.01.1993, however, prosecution had introduced PW-7 Surendra
Godara as an eye-witness who stated that he had seen the
incident, however, his statement was also not found to be
trustworthy by the learned Trial Court.
6.1. Based on the above submissions, the counsel submitted that
the learned Trial Court was right in acquitting the present
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (8 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
respondents as prosecution failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused-respondents for the
offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B, 201, 498-A
and 468 IPC.
6.2. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his
submissions relied on the following judgments and contended that
the judgment of acquittal should be reversed only if the Appellate
Court finds that the judgment suffers from perversity. The detail of
the judgments is as follows :-
(i) Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka; AIR 2024 SC 2252
(ii) Ramesh and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; AIR 2024 SC 4481
(iii) Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat;
AIR 2024 SC 1805
(iv) Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr. Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh; AIR 2024 SC 167
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. In the present case, it is noted that there are two
complaints, one filed by the accused-respondent No.1 and another
by PW-10 Ramesh, brother of the deceased Neelam. On perusal of
both the complaints, it is seen that two distinct and separate
versions have been put forth with regard to the incident following
which deceased Neelam expired. There is no doubt to the fact that
incident occurred on 06.01.1993 and immediately thereafter, she
was taken to the hospital and Dr. Beniwal (PW-29) was called by
the accused-respondent No.1 and he attended the deceased
Neelam. The fact as to whether the accident was natural or fake
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (9 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
would be discussed later but what is required to be seen first is
that the complaint submitted by the brother of the deceased
Neelam is dated 15.01.1993. The delay of 10 days is not explained
by the prosecution and this delay is fatal and has created doubt
regarding the prosecution story.
9. As per the prosecution story, the conspiracy was hatched by
the accused-respondent No.1 along with accused respondents
Nos.2 to 5 in order to kill deceased Neelam as the respondent
No.1 Ravindra Kumar was already in matrimonial ties with one
Saroj Bala (PW-3). This story is not found to be worth relying on
for the reason, firstly, the recovery of Jeep was not established,
secondly, the recovery witnesses of the Jeep turned hostile,
thirdly, there was no evidence to show that Jeep was repaired by
examining the mechanic or any other person. PW-19 Santosh
Singh, PW-25 Gurnam, PW-26 Duli Chand, PW-27 Balveer Singh
and PW-28 Karm Singh had turned hostile and none of them
stated that they had seen damaged Jeep or the Jeep being
repaired. Fourthly, PW-20 Noor Mohamad and PW-23 Magan Singh
had also clearly deposed that they have not witnessed the
damaged Jeep. Fifthly, PW-1 Yasin Khan also turned hostile and
did not support the prosecution story wherein it was alleged that
accused-respondent No.2 Gulshan arranged the Jeep in order to
organize this fake accident.
10. In the present case, it is noted that PW-1 Yasin Khan, PW-2
Om Prakash, PW-5 Daulatram, PW-19 Santokh Singh, PW-25
Gurnaam, PW-26 Duli Chand, PW-27 Balveer Singh, PW-28 Karm
Singh, PW-20 Noor Mohammad and PW-23 Magan Singh turned
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (10 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
hostile. On account of these material witnesses having turned
hostile, the prosecution case totally demolished.
11. The prosecution was not able to prove the involvement of the
accused-respondent No.1 in hatching any conspiracy to kill
deceased Neelam. There is no evidence to support that there was
any preparation/plan/meeting of minds so as to commit crime and
in absence of these facts being established the case of the
prosecution completely fails so as to establish the fact that the
accused-respondents are guilty of hatching conspiracy and
committed murder of the deceased Neelam.
12. PW-2 Om Prakash and PW-5 Daulatram did not recognize the
accused-respondents and in absence of such identification, the
involvement of the accused-respondents in the crime in question
becomes highly doubtful. Coupled with this fact, PW-2 and PW-5
have deposed that they had not seen accused-respondents in the
evening of 05.01.1993 i.e. one day prior to the incident at the
‘Khokha’ of Milkraj and nor they had heard about any preparation
to commit crime. There is no other evidence on record to prove
the fact of any conspiracy and for organizing the said accident.
12.1. PW-4 Shimla Devi has also deposed that she could not
recognize any accused except her brother Kishanlal nor she had
heard anything from accused Kishan Lal with regard to receiving
any amount of Rs.50,000/- for execution of the crime.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-State stated that there
was clear motive behind the crime in question as accused-
respondent No.1 Ravindra Kumar already got married to one Saroj
Bala and therefore, he somehow wanted to get away with the
matrimonial ties with deceased Neelam and for this reason, the
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (11 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
entire conspiracy of organizing the fake accident was planned. As
discussed earlier, the prosecution failed to establish the fact of any
conspiracy and that apart even the factum of second marriage was
not fully established as the prosecution witnesses namely, Saroj
Bala PW-3, Chandra Kanta PW-14, Kamla PW-15, Surendra PW-16
and Satish Kumar PW-33 also turned hostile.
13.1. PW-9 Indra Raj who also appeared in the witness box
and is said to be the head of Arya Samaj Temple Chandigarh,
however, his statement with regard to the marriage of accused
Ravindra with Saroj Bala, is also not found to be trustworthy as he
was not able to recognize Ravindra Kumar or Saroj Bala.
13.2.The statement of PW-24 Sunder Lal Pujari is also not found
to be trustworthy as he has given conflicting statements before
the police and the court. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC,
he was not in a position to identify the accused-Ravindra Kumar
and Saroj Bala, however, after two years of such statement, he
has deposed before the Court that he had identified the accused
respondent No.1 and Saroj Bala.
13.3 So far as, the forged death certificate of Neelam i.e. Exhibit
P/12 is concerned, it is also not proved to be prepared by the
accused-Ravindra as when PW-22 Raghu Sharma was asked by
police to point towards the person who prepared the forged death
certificate, he denied it to be accused-Ravindra.
14. The prosecution had laid heavy reliance on the statements of
PW-7 Surendra Godara who claimed to be an eye-witness of the
incident. On close scrutiny of the statement of PW-7 Surendra
Godara, it is noted that he has claimed himself to be present at
the time of incident. Even if, it is accepted that he has seen the
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (12 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
accident and was present at the spot when a Jeep ran away after
hitting the deceased Neelam yet his subsequent conduct creates
serious doubt about the veracity of such statement as he had not
reported about the incident to any police station and had made
the statement after delay of about 4-5 months. This conduct itself
creates serious doubt about PW-7 being an eye-witness to the
incident.
14.1 He has been presented as an eye-witness however, his
demeanor was not that of an ordinary person. Although he has
deposed about the jeep which hit the deceased however, neither
identification of any accused has been done by him nor has he
deposed as to who was driving the jeep at the time of incident.
14.2 The statements of PW-7 were only recorded on 18.06.1993
which is almost after 5 months from the incident and 7 days prior
to filing of chargesheet. He neither filed any complaint nor
informed the police about the incident. He did not know any of the
accused and he has not named any of the accused while stating
that the jeep had hit the deceased. When no identification of
accused persons by the said witness has taken place, then his
statements are rendered of no use thereby raising doubt as to
involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offences.
14.3 Further, PW-29 Dr. Beniwal who had examined the deceased
(Neelam) after the accident, only recorded 6 injuries whereas PW-
8 Dr. O.P. Sharma who conducted the postmortem has stated 17
injuries which is on the face of it contradictory. PW-7 had stated
that jeep had hit on left side of Neelam’s body whereas PW-8 Dr.
O.P. Sharma has found injuries on right side of the body which
could have occurred from being hit by jeep or other thing. This
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (13 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
raises doubt as to presence of the alleged eye-witness at time of
incident.
15. The prosecution has relied on testimonies of PW-10 Ramesh
(brother of deceased) and PW-31 Rajkumar who was part of a
panchayat conducted at the house of accused-Ravindra.
15.1 The complainant i.e. brother of deceased has deposed that at
the time of marriage, dowry was given amounting to Rs.10,000/-
and initially there was no dispute between the families as to
dowry. However, later due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand,
accused- Ravindra (husband of deceased), Praveen (brother-in-
law of deceased), Valiram (father-in-law of deceased) and Guddi
(sister-in-law of deceased) started harassing the deceased. The
deceased when visited her paternal home during pregnancy she
revealed to her family about the harassment. Consequently, a
panchayat was conducted and Biharilal (father of deceased),
Charanjeet Lal, Kashmirilal Jasuja and Rajkumar Kapoor were part
of it. Further, 2 years after birth of Neelam’s child, she went to her
paternal home and again informed about the harassment upon
which Rs.10,000/- were given by PW-10 Ramesh to accused-
Ravindra. The deceased had also written a letter in August, 1992
(Ex. P/23) upon which another panchayat was conducted and
Omprakash Arora, Vijay Kumar Nagpal, Rajkumar Kapoor and
Bhagwandas Arora were part of it. The accused-respondent
threatened to kill Neelam and expressed to engage in second
marriage. PW-10 Ramesh alongwith other members of the
panchayat went to file complaint in Police Station however, it did
not yield any result as Praveen (brother of accused-Ravindra)
came to Police Station and he assured that there would not be any
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (14 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
problem in future. This incident occurred on 15-16 August, 1992
as deposed by PW-10 Ramesh.
15.2 PW-31 Rajkumar who is neighbour of father of deceased
deposed that Biharilal (father of deceased) told him about the
harassment faced by Neelam at the hands of her husband and
that her husband did not want to continue the marriage. He was
part of the panchayat alongwith Biharilal (father of deceased),
Ramesh Nagpal, Charanjeet Lal and Kashmirilal Jasuja wherein
accused-Ravindra threatened to kill Neelam. The said panchayat
was conducted 10-12 years before the incident in question.
15.3 The above-mentioned witnesses have although deposed
about the dowry demands however, the statements are omnibus
and do not portray the specific demand of dowry. Furthermore,
PW-10 has admitted that he had not personally witnessed any
harassment faced by the deceased rather had made statements
according to the letter exhibited as Ex. P/23 and what had come
to his knowledge from other people. So far as PW-31 is concerned,
he has deposed that father of the deceased had told him about the
dowry demands and harassment faced by deceased Neelam. This
Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not led any cogent
evidence so as to prove dowry demands. Moreover, PW-17 and
PW-18 who are neighbors of accused-respondent have deposed
that the relations between the deceased and her husband were
cordial. Hence, in view of the said discussion it cannot be said that
the allegation of dowry demand is proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution.
16. It is noted that two investigations were carried out in the
present case; first, upon the FIR filed by the accused-respondent
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (15 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
Ravindra Kumar and second, upon the complaint filed by PW-10
Ramesh (brother of the deceased).
16.1 So far as the first investigation is concerned, it was carried
out by DW-1 Narpat Singh who has allegedly recorded statement
(Ex. D/7) of the deceased after the accident on 06.01.1993. The
said investigation has been questioned by the prosecution on the
premise that it was not conducted in a proper manner and the
statement of the deceased had been forged by DW-1 Narpat
Singh. A perusal of the statement of PW-35 K Narsimharao
(Superintendent of Police) reflects that he had reported regarding
the improper investigation by DW-1 and hence, had received the
charge of present case. This further indicates that the
investigation itself was faulty right from its inception.
17. In view of the discussion made above, this Court observes
that the prosecution has completely failed to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused for
offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B, 201, 498-A
and 468 IPC as the factum of conspiracy being hatched by the
accused-respondent No.1 was not established, the motive of
committing crime was not established, the recovery of Jeep was
not established, the factum of second marriage was not
established and in absence of all these facts, the credibility of the
prosecution story becomes highly doubtful so as to convict the
accused-respondents.
18. This Court has examined the evidence and material available
on record so also the reason and findings given by the learned
Trial Court and does not find any reason to interfere with the well-
reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (16 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
19. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on
12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors.
(Supra), as hereunder-:
Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):
“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.”
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):
“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of
CrPC as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (17 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion
which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused
has to be exercised within the four corners of the following
principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; (c) 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.”
20. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of
acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 302 read with
Sections 120-B, 201, 498-A and 468 IPC, which in the given
circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled
principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the
Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it
demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in
arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial
Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each
and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analyzed
the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (18 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned
judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
21. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by
the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned
judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally
plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify
the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the
impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the
instant appeal.
22. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the
aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit
case warranting any interference by this Court.
23. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
24. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(B.N.S.S.), 2023, the respondent No.1-Ravindra Kumar S/o
Baliram, respondent No.3-Kishanlal S/o Udaram and
respondent No.4-Omprakash @ Om Kabadia S/o Jagannath
are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-
each and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the
learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of
six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-
respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31300-DB] (19 of 19) [CRLA-130/2001]
Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to
do so.
25. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
26. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
ajayS/skm-
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:57:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)