An appellate court may only interfere with a judgment of acquittal when there are compelling reasons, and the presumption of innocence remains fortified by acquittal.

ORDER :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1.Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Cr. Appeal No.33/2012, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 25.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali in Cr. Regular Case No.140/2008 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offences under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before the concerned court against the accused- respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 IPC, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Jaitaran for investigation. Upon receiving the complaint, the Police registered an FIR against the accused-respondent No.2 and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four 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 25.04.2012 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 498-A, 406 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 dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2015. Hence, this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the learned courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, despite the fact that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 for commission of the alleged offence. While passing the impugned judgments, the learned courts below have not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. 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 offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC.

8. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned courts below have passed detailed and reasoned orders of acquittal, which require no interference from this Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by the courts below.

10. On perusal of the impugned judgments, 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 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 No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned courts below have rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC.

11. 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 material evidence or