IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the trial court's decision is demonstrably flawed or perverse, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This criminal revision under Sections 379/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner (complainant), claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the revision petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and direct to the learned trial Court to pass appropriate order according to law in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2007 and the present revision petition has been pending since the year 2009.

3. By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-complainant laid a challenge to the judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur in Sessions Case 3/2008 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Gendu Kanwar & Anr.) whereby the accused-respondents-Gendu Kanwar & Tej Singh have been acquitted under Section 120-B & 302 IPC (Smt. Gendu Kanwar) and 120-B IPC & 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC (Tej Singh).

4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (complainant), are that the petitioner-complainant-Inder Singh submitted a written complaint before the Police Station, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, stating therein that his daughter-Bhawan Kanwar (deceased) was married to accused-respondent-Tej Singh, whereafter, on 20.04.2007, Sonu-daughter of deceased (grand daughter - Dohiti - of complainant) informed over the phone to complainant’s son-Lokpal that the deceased was burnt, and she was admitted in the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, whereupon the complainant came from Bikaner to Jodhpur; thereafter, reached to the hospital and the deceased told she was burnt by her sister-in-law (Jethani).

4.1. On the next day i.e. 21.04.2007 at around 7:00 a.m., the complainant’s daughter died; he further stated that Sonu told him that deceased’s sister-in-law (Jethani) indulged into a fight with the deceased, during course of which, she (Jethani) had burnt the deceased.

4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned written information (Ex.P/1) given by the complainant, an FIR (Ex.P/12) dated 26.05.2007 was registered at Police Station, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and the investigation accordingly commenced.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 alongwith 120-B & 120-B IPC against the accused-respondents, which were read over to the accused-respondents; the same were denied by the accused-respondents, and they sought due trial, and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter before the learned Trial Court.

6. During the course of trial, the evidence of 10 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 13 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, and one witness was examined as Court witness (CW-1) whereas, the accused-respondents in support of defence produced total of 1 witness as well as 9 documents were exhibited in defence; whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.

7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.08.2008 as above, against which the present revision, has been preferred on behalf of the Complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) submits that the evidence rendered by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5, are in corroboration with each other and the same fully support the prosecution story.

8.1. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that accused-respondent-Gendu Kanwar had illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased i.e. accused-respondent-Tej Singh, and therefore, she burnt the deceased, which resu