IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn such judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 18.02.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jalore Camp Bhinmal in Sessions Case No.76/2004 (40/2004), whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the offences under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2004, the petitioner-complainant gave a written report at Police Station Bhinmal to the effect that last night, his cousin sister went for answering call of nature, but she did not return back. On inquiry, one Kheta told that the accused namely Heera and Akabar forcibly took his sister in a Jeep. Subsequently, it was also came to know that the accused-respondents took his sister for marriage and for establishment of illicit relation. On this report, Police registered the case against the accused-respondents and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against accused-respondents for offence under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-respondents. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defecne, two witnesses were examined.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2005 acquitted the accused-respondents from offences under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC. Hence this criminal revision against the acquittal of accused-respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents 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-respondents from offence under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

8. 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 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-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 376, 366, 382 IPC.

9. 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-respondents 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.

10. 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. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the