Courts will only interfere with a judgment of acquittal in compelling circumstances, ensuring the presumption of innocence is maintained.

Judgment

23/07/2025 Learned AAG has submitted a report dated 22.07.2024 received from the SHO, PS Padu Kallan, District Nagaur informing that accused-respondents No.3 Nen Singh and No.4 Hanuman Singh have passed away. The said report is hereby taken on record.

In view of above, the revision petition qua accused-

respondents No.3 & 4 is dismissed as abated.

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 10.02.2009, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.43/2006, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence under Sections 147 , 323, 336, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2005, the complainant/petitioner gave a written report before the concerned Police Station against the accused-respondents to the effect that the accused respondents assaulted him and his family members and also abused them with caste oriented language. Upon the said report, Police registered the case against the accused-respondents and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondents denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, the accused- respondents examined four witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 10.02.2009 acquitted the accused- respondent from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused- respondent for offence under Sections 147 , 323, 336, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. 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 147 , 323, 336, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, no interference is required.

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

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- respondents from offence Sections 147 , 323, 336, 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

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 trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored mat