Complainant challenged the acquittal of eight accused in an assault case by criminal revision. The High Court found no misreading or ignoring of evidence, noted contradictions and a hostile witness, applied settled principles limiting interference with acquittals, and dismissed the revision.
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 Petition No. 537/2006
Mangi Lal son of Shri Ram Gopal, aged 40 years, resident of Kherli Phatak, Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
All are resident of Village Khopal, P.S. Chhabra, District Baran.
----Accused Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Aditya Raj for Mr. Praveen |
|---|---|
| Balwada | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Amit Gupta-Dy.GA cum PP |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
08/10/2025
[CRLR-537/2006]
(2 of 5)
PW-2 Babu Lal was going to Village Pipaliya on a motorcycle. Suddenly, a buffalo came in front of the motor-cycle, due to which the bike slowed down and at that moment, the accused respondent No.5- Mangi Lal started beating the complainant on his head and when he tried to run away, the other accused respondents namely Ram Prasad, Madan Lal, Satya Naryan, Mukesh, Parmanand, Mohan Lal and Babu Lal came there with Lathi and Gandasi in their hands and started beating the complainant and PW2- Babu Lal. In the aforesaid incident both of them have sustained injuries.
[CRLR-537/2006]
(3 of 5)
statements of the prosecution witnesses, the guilt of each and every accused has been established and proved beyond the reasonable doubt but inspite of the above, the evidence of the witnesses was not rightly appreciated and the same was misread and the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused respondents. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused respondents is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[CRLR-537/2006]
(4 of 5)
has rightly acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges.
“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.
“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.”
[CRLR-537/2006]
(5 of 5)
order of acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal/revision against acquittal, except that while dealing with an appeal/revision 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.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Sections 341, 148 and 307/149 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraRelied on¶10
2011(9) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu DuttaRelied on¶11
(2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangi Lal s/o Shri Ram Gopal
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Ram Prasad S/o Kanhaiya Lal
Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal
Parmanand S/o Ram Kishan
Mangi Lal S/o Babu Lal
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
