HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 370/2019

Shobha Devi W/o Sh. Ghanshyam Ojha, Aged About 47 Years,

B/c Brahmin, R/o Chui, P.s. Degana District Nagour.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Teja Ram S/o Sh. Sanwata Ram, Aged About 38 Years,

B/c Jat R/o Chui, P.s. Degana, District Nagour.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. KS Rathore

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

27/03/2019

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 15.02.2019, passed by the learned

Session Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.11/2018 whereby the

learned Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated

06.02.2018, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Degana in Criminal Case No.43/2014 whereby the

learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from

the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.38/2014 dated

15.02.2014 was registered by the petitioner at PS Degana, District

Nagaur stating therein that on 14.02.2014 the accused-

respondent along with his other friend came to her house with the

intention to commit robbery and in course of the same, they

attacked the petitioner and her family members. During the said

(2 of 3)

[CRLR-370/2019]

incident, the accused-respondent molested the petitioner Shobha

Devi and Pooja Sharma and also took away the gold ornaments.

On this report, Police registered the case for offences under

Sections 341, 323, 354, 379 IPC and commenced investigation.

The police after due investigation filed challan against the

respondent No.2 for offence under Section 323, 341, 504 IPC.

The trial Court framed charges against the respondent No.2

for the aforesaid offences. The accused respondent denied the

charges and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of

8 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The statement of accused

respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court

acquitted the accused respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences

charged against him vide order dated 06.02.2018. Being

aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2018, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, which was dismissed

vide order dated 15.02.2019 and the order dated 06.02.2018 was

upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

courts below without considering the evidence and material aspect

of the matter, acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for the

aforesaid offences. Further the learned trial court has got into the

process of nit picking of the statement of the complainant as well

as other witnesses and has formed the said minor discrepancy as

a base of acquittal of the accused-respondent. Thus the impugned

orders are per-se illegal and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

(3 of 3)

[CRLR-370/2019]

perused the impugned orders as also gone through the entire

record.

From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the

learned courts below, it appears that the learned trial court as well

as learned Appellate court have acquitted the accused respondent

on the basis of contradictions in the statements and also the fact

that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt so as to bring home the charges.

In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the courts

below are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the orders

of acquittal by the courts below. The orders passed by the courts

below are perfectly according to the law and there is no illegality

or infirmity in the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Umrao v. State of Harayana and Ors. Reported in