[2025:RJ-JD:21665]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1342/2018 Premlata W/o Megha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Jat, Pratap Ki Dhani , Borawad, Tehsil Makrana Distt. Nagaur ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rameshwar @ Ramu S/o Deepu Ram, B/c Jat, Dabadiya , P.s. Gachhipura , Distt. Nagaur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary Mr. J.K. Suthar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

02/05/2025

1. The accused-respondent was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After a detailed and rigorous trial, and upon a thorough discussion of the evidence brought on record, the learned ACJM, Makrana vide its judgment dated 26.09.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.320/2005, acquitted the respondent from all the charges.

2. The entire legal and factual matrix was again re-appreciated by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar vide judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.135/2014 preferred by the petitioner. However, subjecting a person to further criminal proceedings despite concurrent findings of acquittal by two Courts is neither justified nor reasonable. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC. Unless there is a manifest illegality, complete miscarriage of justice, or perversity in appreciation of evidence resulting in grave injustice, further appreciation of evidence to take a view contrary to what has already been taken by two courts is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction. There is a concurrency in the judgment of two Courts, and after having a cursory look over it, I do not find any error of law or gross misappreciation of evidence warranting interference. No specific illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner so as to disturb the well-reasoned judgments of acquittal rendered by the courts below.

3. It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further fortification after his acquittal by a reasoned judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and should show reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned judgment of acquittal. It should be kept in mind that until and unless it is observed that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of the material brought on record or it is against any provision of law or is concluded upon misappreciation of evidence; the appellate Court should not interfere in the finding reached by the trial Court. If after re-appreciation of evidence, a stage comes where two views seem possible still the Court should tend to accept the view favourable to the accused. Recently Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the matter of Mallappa & Ors.Versus State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal NO. 1162/2011 decided on 12.02.2024) had an occasion to expound common principles in respect of the issue involved in like cases while entertaining an appeal against acquittal; the relevant Para No.36 is reproduced as under :-

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the T