Petitioner filed a criminal revision challenging the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 for dowry-related offences. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, found the trial court's reasoning sound and dismissed the petition.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1281 / 2003
Rammulal S/o Ramhet, aged about 56 years, resident of Village Mehmadpur, Police Station Busawar, District Bharapur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.p. For Complainant(s): None.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
28/11/2017
Respondent No. 2 had faced trial in FIR No. 394/1998 registered at Police Station Toda Bheem for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Trial court vide judgment dated 25.02.2003 ordered the acquittal of respondent No. 2. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondent No.2 is the husband of the deceased. Case of the complainant was that the deceased had died on account of harassment meted out to her on account of demand of dowry. Trial court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent No.2 has
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1281/2003]
taken into consideration the fact that there was no post-mortem examination of the deceased. Hence, there was no material available on record to establish the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death. It has been noticed by the Trial Court that the petitioner and his other relatives had attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased and at that stage, no objection was raised by the petitioner. Reasons given by the Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent No.2 are sound reasons and call for no interference by this court.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1281/2003]
the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. 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”
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
S.Kumawat/D-29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in the acquittal of the respondent on appeal filed by the complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of GujaratReferred¶19
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraApplied¶20
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rammulal S/o Ramhet
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Kesh Ram S/o Umrav
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
