In appeals against acquittals, the presumption of innocence is upheld, and interference is warranted only when the trial court's judgment is contrary to evidence or patently erroneous.

Judgment :

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C . against the acquittal of the accused-respondent from offences under Section 494 IPC vide judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandfiya, District Chittorgarh in Regular Cr. Case No.95/2015 (CIS No.91/2015).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant Smt. Roshan submitted a complaint before the concerned Police Station to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with the accused-respondent according to the Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the complainant’s in-laws started harassing her for dowry. Subsequently, the accused-respondent married to another woman namely Shankari and threatened the complainant to leave the matrimonial home wit her son.

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against him. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent and framed the charge for offence under Section 494 IPC . The accused-respondent denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C . In defence, the accused-respondent examined himself as DW-1 and also exhibited two documents.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2022 acquitted the accused- respondent from offence under Section 494 IPC . Hence, this criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court did not consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Section 494 IPC . The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.

9. 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-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 494 IPC .

10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant 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.

11. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479 ,' decided on September 5, 2011, 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 tria