[2026:RJ-JD:17449]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 822/2008 Om Prakash S/o Hanuman Prasad Meena R/o Rmpura Bari, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Ummed Singh S/o Matu Singh

3. Dalip Singh S/o Rajendra Singh respondents No.2 & 3 R/o Rampura Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

Mr. Chakarvati Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/04/2026

1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant–petitioner assailing the judgment dated 01.07.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu, whereby the accused- respondentsNo. 2 and 3; Ummed Singh and Dalip Singh have been acquitted of the offences under Section 341 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, while they have been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC but extended the benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.10.2006, the complainant Om Prakash lodged a written report at Police Station Hamirwas alleging that while he was present in his agricultural field, the accused persons arrived in a jeep, wrongfully restrained him, abused him with caste-related remarks, and inflicted injuries with lathis and hockey sticks. Upon his raising alarm, neighbouring persons intervened and rescued him.

2.1. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 225/2006 came to be registered for offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. After due investigation, charge-

sheet was filed, and the case proceeded to trial.

2.2. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the injured complainant and eye-witnesses, as well as the medical officer. The accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and did not lead any defence evidence. 2.3. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Section 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, while convicting them under Section 323 IPC and granting benefit of probation. 3. None present for the petitioner to argue the case, I have heard the learned Dy.G.A. for the State and counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and gone through the record of the case.

4. Before adverting to the merits, it is apposite to delineate the contours of revisional jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re- appreciate evidence unless there is manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice.

4.1. More importantly, it is a settled proposition that a revision petition at the instance of a private complainant against an order of acquittal is not to be entertained as a substitute for an appeal, particularly when the statute provides a specific remedy to the State. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction to reassess the entire evidence. 4.2. It is noteworthy that despite the matter being listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the complainant–petitioner to prosecute the present revision petition. The matter, being of considerable vintage, has been examined on merits with the assistance of the record.

5. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial Court has undertaken a detailed and reasoned appreciation of the evidence.

5.1. The trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the essential ingredients of wrongful restraint and the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were not established beyond reasonable doubt. The allegations of caste-based abuse were found to be either vague or not sufficiently corroborated