Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1054 (RAJ)

Vidhya Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner Vidhya Devi for assailing the judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Addtional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar rejecting the victim's appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 372 CrPC and affirming the judgment dated 15.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Regular Case No.81/2001 acquitting the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgments. 3. At the outset, it may be stated here that two courts of competent jurisdiction have, after thorough appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, recorded concurrent findings of facts for acquitting the respondents from the above offences and for upholding their acquittal. The substratum of the allegations as set out by the petitioner in her FIR was that the respondents accused fabricated the documents and got executed the sale deed of the land, of which the petitioner had exclusive right and title. 4. The trial court as well as the appellate court appreciated the evidence of the Revenue Officer. Devi Lal Patwari (P.W.5), who admitted that the accused Rami Devi was a joint owner of the land in question and that the mutation entry to this effect was made in her favour. After the mutation, petitioner Vidhya Devi and the respondent Rami Devi both had absolute right to sell their share of the land in question. Considering the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [2009 Cr.L.R. SC 471] both the court's below held that none of the documents prepared in the case could be termed to be fabricated within the meaning of Section 463 and 464 CrPC and rightly so in my opinion. 5. Law is well-settled that while considering a revision against acquittal, the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and the only permissible order would be to direct de novo trial, which is only possible if there has occasioned failure of justice in the decision of the case by the courts below. 5. Law is well-settled that while considering a revision against acquittal, the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and the only permissible order would be to direct de novo trial, which is only possible if there has occasioned failure of justice in the decision of the case by the courts below. However, after thorough appreciation of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the only logical and legal outcome of the case at hand was the acquittal of the respondents, which was rightly recorded by the courts below by the impugned judgments, which do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference therein. 6. Hence, I find no merit in this revision, which is dismissed as such.