In this criminal revision under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal by the trial and appellate courts, holding that the impugned judgments were free from infirmity and based on appreciated evidence.
The revision preferred against the judgment of acquittal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1010 / 2011
Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, D/o Shri Jogaram, B/c Sagarwanshi Mali, R/o Sampurnanand Colony, Presently R/o Near Sarjavav Gate, Sirohi, Tehsil & District- Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyaya, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
16/11/2017
Heard.
This revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant against the judgment dated 26.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Regular Case No.381/2005 acquitting the respondent no.2 Kamlesh Kumar from the charge under 498A IPC.
Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that two Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings
(2 of 2)
of facts disbelieving the prosecution case and acquitting the respondent. A perusal of the trial Court’s judgment clearly discloses that the evidence led by the petitioner complainant was appreciated in a totally just and appropos fashion and finding the same to be highly vacillating and contradictory, the accused was acquitted of the charge. The judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court has been confirmed in the appeal as well. In a revision against acquittal, the powers of High Court are curtailed by virtue of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. as per which, finding of acquittal cannot be converted in one of conviction. Since the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity or shortcoming whatsoever, I am not inclined to entertain this revision for interfering therein. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
S.Phophaliya/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a revision against a judgment of acquittal recorded by two courts of competent jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned judgments suffer from any infirmity or shortcoming warranting interference under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar
State of Rajasthan
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Vena Ram
SANDEEP MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
