Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Smt.Alol Kanwar … on 7 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 636/2009
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Alol Kanwar W/o Shri Udai Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o
Chokedi, P.S. Amet, District Rajsamand.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore with
Mr. Bajrang Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgement
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
07/08/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 05.03.2009, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, in Sessions Case
No.39/2008, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Sections
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 12.06.2008, complainant-Sajjan Singh gave a written
report at C.H.C., Amet to the effect that his daughter-Antar Kuwar
was married to Maan Singh about six years ago. Out of their
wedlock two children were born. After the marriage, accused
respondent, mother-in-law of the deceased, mentally and
physically harassed her. It was stated submitted by the
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]
complainant that about five months ago, his daughter came to her
parental house and on 10.06.2008, his son-in-law Maan Singh
alongwith some other family members visited his house for taking
Antar Kanwar back to her matrimonial home and they also
assured that in future they will not harass her. Upon which, the
complainant sent his daughter with them. On 12.06.2008 at about
1:00 p.m., complainant received a telephonic information that his
daughter- Antar Kunwar got burned and admitted in Amet
Hospital. On this information, complainant alongwith Lal Singh,
Pappu Singh, Gopal Singh went to the hospital, where Antar
Kunwar told the complainant that her mother-in-law Alok Kunwar
(accused respondent) poured kerosene oil on her and lit fire with
the intention to kill her and due to which she received burn
injuries.
On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the case
against the accused-respondent for offence under Sections 307,
498-A and 323 IPC. Thereafter on 21.06.2008 Antar Kunwar died
and the Police added offence under Section 302 IPC and started
investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed challan
against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 498-
A, 304-B and 302 of IPC.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B
and 302 IPC to the accused respondent. She denied the charge
and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twenty-one witnesses and also got exhibited relevant
documents in support of its case.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]
The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and in defence, certain documents were exhibited and also
examined one witness as DW/1 Maan Singh.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 05.03.2009 acquitted the accused-respondent
from offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. Hence
this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the
accused-respondent.
Learned Public Prosecutor-Mr. Vikam Singh Rajpurohit has
vehemently submitted that there is a dying declaration before the
learned Magistrate in which the deceased clearly mentioned that
the accused respondent poured kerosene on her and lit fire and
there is no question to disbelieve this dying declaration. He further
submits that the learned trial Court had not appreciated this
material dying declaration. The learned trial Court mentioned that
according to the statement of Dr. Nishit Kumar (PW/10) in his
cross examination, the deceased might have poured kerosene on
her body and lit fire. Doctor further mentioned in his statement
that if anyone else had poured the kerosene, then the person
would have tried to run away, but in this case, deceased did not
try to run away from the place of incident. According to him if
kerosene was poured by someone, then it would be on some part
of the body and not on the whole body, on this erroneous finding,
the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent.
Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per se illegal and
erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent submits that
when the deceased gave dying declaration, at that time family
members of deceased were present and she was tutored by them
before giving her statement. It is further argued that the death
took place after the nine days of the incident; this shows that due
to the negligence on the part of the doctors, Smt. Antar Kunwar
died. It is further argued that the prosecution has also failed to
prove any motive for which the accused-respondent committed
this incident. He further submits that the respondent was aged
about 50 years at the time of incident and now she is aged about
78 years and not keeping good health, as she is suffering from
various old age diseases. The learned trial court has passed a
detailed and reasoned judgment of acquittal after proper
appreciation of evidence available before it, which requires no
interfere from this Court.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well
as record of the case.
The incident took place on 12.06.2008, upon which, the
father of deceased filed a written report before the Police Station
and in pursuance of that report, FIR was registered. As per the
dying declaration, recorded on 12.06.2008 allegation has been
levelled against the accused respondent for pouring kerosene on
her and lighting the fire, but on the contrary, according to the
statement of Dr. Nishit Kumar (PW/10), the way the smell of
kerosene was coming from the clothes of deceased, it cannot be
ruled out that she herself poured kerosene on her and commit
suicide. From the record, it is also found that Antar Kunwar died
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]
on 21.06.2008 i.e. after nine days of the incident and the
prosecution has not established the reason for mental and
physical harassment of deceased. The trial Court while discussing
all these material aspect of the case, acquitted the accused-
respondent. It is also found from the record that the accused-
respondent was aged about 50 years at the time of occurrence
and now her age is 78 years old and she is not having good health
either.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,
while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere
with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is
warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based
on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and
involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such
circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and
substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the
acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this
principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing
the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial
errors in the acquittal order. these are:-
21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah &
Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view
it was observed:
“8. … This being an appeal against acquittal, this
Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of
the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation
of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage
of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible
view this Court would not be justified in interfering
with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]if two views are possible and the High Court had
chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then
also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court.”
22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in
Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020)
11 SCC 174, it was observed:
“190. … Reversal of a judgment and order of
conviction and acquittal of the accused should not
ordinarily be interfered with unless such
reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other
words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if
the court finds that no person properly instructed in
law could have upon analysis of the evidence on
record found the accused to be “not guilty”. …”
Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay
Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 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(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35007-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-636/2009]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.”
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against
the accused-respondent for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B
and 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant/State 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 judgment passed by the learned trial court is
detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified and the same does not
suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference
from this Court.
With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no
substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
58-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:37:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)