Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jatano vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14172) on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14172]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1651/2024
Smt. Jatano W/o Sh. Poonama Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Balmiki Colony, Jaisalmer, (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kalu Singh S/o Durg Singh, R/o Digga, Ps Mohangarh,
Dist. Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.L. Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 17/03/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant- complainant under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 06.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.32/2020 while granting the benefit of doubt.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant Smt. Jatano lodged an FIR before the Police Station Jaisalmer, stating therein that her husband allotted a land and she resided on the said land. Accused Kalu Singh alongwith Punam Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy they made the complainant's husband drink the alcohol and they took the documents of the (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:35:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14172] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024] said land and also signed some papers by her husband and thereafter they took KCC loan on that land by using the political power, they grabbed her land illegally.
On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent No.2 and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused- respondents and framed the charges for offence under Sections 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act. The accused- respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten, witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.05.2024 acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 from offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act while granting the benefit of doubt. 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-respondent (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:35:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14172] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024] No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST Act.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court and prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.
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. The incident took place in the year 2019. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ ST Act.
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.
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 (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:35:01 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14172] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024] 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 material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for 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.
(Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:35:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14172] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1651/2024] In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 13-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:35:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)