Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 788 (RAJ)

Rubi Bano @ Babi v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-13

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
ORDER : 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.08.2011, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in Cr. Regular Case No. 294/2009 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Rajgarh for investigation. Upon receiving the complaint, the Police registered an FIR against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4, who denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 26.08.2011 acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 6. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner-complainant preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment dated 08.12.2016 with liberty to file a revision petition against the order of trial court before this Court. Hence this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 8. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 8. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in 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 Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. 11. 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 judgment under challenge. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the offences. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 12. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) SCC 479 ', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down 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.” 13. 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.” 13. 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.” 14. 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 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. Learned counsel for 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 judgment under challenge. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.