Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 424 (RAJ)

Radhmani v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-18

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 09.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal No.67/2016 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 08.07.2016, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No.1421/2014, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the on 21.12.2005, petitioner/ complainant filed a complaint before the concerned court with the allegation that the accused-respondent No.2 had committed forgery with her. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon which, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent No.2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The accused respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 08.07.2016 acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 6. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 09.06.2022. Hence this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused- respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned courts below did not consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused- respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences. 8. The learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused- respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offences. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. The judgments of the courts below are just and proper and warrant no interference from this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as considered the material available on record. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgments of the trial court as well as appellate court, it appears that the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments have considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before them in its 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 No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 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 judgments under challenge. The orders passed by the learned courts below are detailed and reasoned orders and the same do not warrant any interference from this Court. 12. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 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. 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. 12. 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 Courts below 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 judgments 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. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.