Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2488 (RAJ)

Ganesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-09-20

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner is accused and facing trial in FIR No. 236/2018 registered with Mahila Thana, Police Station, Tonk corresponding to Criminal Case No. 311/2018. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 02/05/2022, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is worth to mention that the parties have entered into a compromise and the court below had already accepted compounding under Section 406 IPC, however, did not accept compromise under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as these offences are not compoundable. 4. No prosecution witness supported the prosecution case and all were declared hostile. 5. In the circumstance, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner should have been acquitted with honour and should not have been acquitted on ’benefit of doubt’ as recorded by the learned Trial Judge. 6. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner since there was no evidence and therefore, there was no question of only doubting the prosecution case. It was a case of clean acquittal in absence of evidence. 6. The judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt could be recorded only when there is prosecution witness in support of the charge and the prosecution evidence suffers from doubt. However, in cases where the prosecution evidence is nil in the sense that no prosecution witness turned up to say that he had witnessed the occurrence or the prosecution witnesses examined deposed that he does not know about the occurrence or had not seen the occurrence the same would be a case of clean acquittal. 7. Since no appeal is maintainable at the hands of accused persons against the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner has knocked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the miscarriage of justice. 8. Considering the facts of the case, the trial court judgment stands quashed and it is directed that by the impugned judgment, the petitioner would be treated as acquitted with no stigma. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.