Allowed

State of Raj. v. Narottam and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2026CRLA/173/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the acquittal of two respondents who were convicted of abetting suicide and molestation of a child. The Court found the trial court's reliance on the child's evidence was proper and the appellate court could safely interfere.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of respondents set aside; conviction and sentence confirmed.

State of Raj. Vs Narottam and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 173/2001

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

1- Narottam Son of Gobrilal, Resident of Vijaypur.

¶8

2- Ramesh Son of Gobrilal, Resident of Vijaypur, P.S. Baran, Sadar, Distt., Baran. (Since Died)

¶9

----Accused-Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Dutt Rundla, Adv. For Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment

¶12

06/04/2026

¶13

(PER HON'BLE BHUWAN GOYAL, J.)

¶14

1. izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr la[;k&2 jes'k dh e`R;q gksus ij bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 22&07&2025 }kjk gLrxr vihy mldh gn rd vcsV dh tk pqdh gS ,oa vc izLrqr vihy dk fu.kZ; izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr la[;k& 1 ujksRre dh gn rd fd;k tk jgk gSA

¶15

2. vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; }kjk gLrxr vihy varxZr /kkjk 378 ¼i½¼iii½ n-iaz-la- ds rgr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;& vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckajk ¼jktLFkku½ }kjk ls'ku izdj.k l a [;k 10@1997] muokuh izdj.k jktLFkku jkT; cuke ujksRre o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18&12&1997] ftlds }kjk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr ujksRre dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 302 o 498, Hkk-na-la- ds vkjksiksa ls rFkk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr jes'k dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 201 Hkknl ds vkjksiksa ls lansg dk ykHk fn;k tkdj nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gS] ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶16

3. çdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gSa fd ifjoknh xaxk/kj ¼ih-M-&5½ us iqfyl Fkkuk ekaxjksy] ftyk&ckajk ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj rgjhjh

¶17

(2 of 12)

¶18

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶19

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶20

fjiksVZ ¼izn'kZ ih&2½ bl vk'k; dh is'k dh fd mldh yM+dh gseyrk dk fookg 8&10 lky igys xzke lkaxksn ds lEesyu esa ujksRre 'kekZ iq= xkscjhyky 'kekZ fuoklh fot;iqj ds lkFk gqvk Fkk] rc ls mldh yM+dh rFkk mldk ifr ujksRre 'kekZ xzke HkVsfM;k esa fuokl dj jgs Fks] tgka mldh yM+dh dk ifr /kkdM+ksa dk eafnj dh lsok iwtk djrk FkkA mldh yM+dh 'kknh ds ckn ,d&nks ckj llqjky HkVsfM;k xbZ o vk;h] rc rd Bhd Fkk] fdarq FkksMs le; ckn ls gh mldh yM+dh dk ifr mlds lkFk ekjihV djus yx x;kA mldh yM+dh us tc Hkh og mlds ;gka vkbZ rks mlds lkFk ekjihV djus ckcr~ crk;kA yxHkx Ms<+&nks eghus igys mldh yM+dh mlds ikl xzke uksrkM+k ekyh;ku vk;h rc Hkh mlus jks&jksdj mls crk;k fd mldk ifr mlls #i;s dh ekax djrk gS rFkk vk, fnu ekjihV djrk gS rFkk dgrk gS fd ;fn mlds firk ls 20]000@& #i;s ugha ykbZ rks fdlh fnu tku ls [kRe dj nsxkA bl ij mlus mldh yM+dh dks ek= 2]000@& #i;s nsdj okil xzke HkVsfM;k fHktok fn;k] fQj mldk ifr mls ysdj xzke fot;iqj pyk x;k] tgka mlus ,d cPph dks tUe fn;kA fnukad 27&12&1996 dks mldh yM+dh dks mlds ifr ujksRre 'kekZ us xzke HkVsfM;k esa tgka fd mls fMyhojh ds ckn xzke fot;iqj ls ys vk;k Fkk] tku ls [kRe dj fn;kA bl ckr dh tkudkjh fnukad 29&12&1996 dks mls xzke fot;iqj ds es?koky lekt ds O;fDr us vkdj nhA mlus dsoy mldh yM+dh dh ekSr ckcr~ crk;kA bl ij og xzke fot;iqj igqapk rks tkudkjh gqbZ fd mldh yM+dh dh xzke HkVsfM;k esa gR;k dj nh xbZ rFkk mldk tsB jes'k mls HkVsfM;k ls fot;iqj ys x;k] tgka mldk nkg laLdkj dj fn;k x;kA mldh yM+dh dh gR;k dh xbZ gS] bl ckr dh tkudkjh xzke fot;iqj tkus ij mldh yM+dh dh cM+h cPph lfjrk us nh] mlus dgk fd mldh eEeh gseyrk dks mlds firk ujksRre 'kekZ us Nkrh ij cSBdj eqag esa diM+k Bqaldj ekj fn;k gSA fnukad 27&12&1996 dh jkf= dks mldh yM+dh dh gR;k dh xbZ rFkk ml jkf= dks mldh yM+dh dk tsB jes'k rFkk jes'k dk yM+dk] ftldk

¶21

(3 of 12)

¶22

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶23

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶24

uke mls irk ugha gS] Hkh ogka ekStwn FkkA bl rjg ls mu lHkh us "kM~;a= jpdj mldh yM+dh dh gR;k dh gS] rc ls mldh yM+dh dk ifr ujksRre 'kekZ Qjkj gS------------bR;kfnA

¶25

4. mDr rgjhjh fjiksVZ ¼izn'kZ ih-&2½ ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl Fkkuk ekaxjksy] ftyk&ckajk esa eqdnek uEcj 03@1997] vUrxZr /kkjk 302] 498, rFkk 201 Hkknl esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku izkjEHk fd;k x;k ,oa ckn vuqla/kku izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr ujksRre 'kekZ ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 302] 498, Hkknl o izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr jes'k 'kekZ ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 201 Hkk-na-la- esa vkjksi i= flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼dfu"B [kaM½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVsªV] izFke oxZ] ekaxjksy] ftyk ckajk ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl ij fo}ku U;k;ky; }kjk izlaKku fy;k tkdj ekeyk ls'ku U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.kh; gksus ls gLrxr izdj.k ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckajk dks dfeV fd;k x;k] tgka ls dkykarj esa gLrxr izdj.k lquokbZ gsrq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckajk¼jktLFkku½ dks mikfiZr gksdj izkIr gqvkA

¶26

5. fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us cgl pktZ lqudj izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr ujksRre dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 302] 498, Hkk-na-la- esa rFkk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr jes'k dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 201 Hkk-na-la- esa n.Muh; vijk/kksa dk vkjksi iFkd&iFkd fojfpr dj mUgsa lquk;k o le>k;k rks vfHk;qDrx.k us vkjksi vLohdkj dj vUoh{kk pkgh] ftl ij vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ekSf[kd lk{; esa xokgku ih-MCY;w-&1 yxk;r ih-MCY;w-&18 ds c;ku ys[kc) djok;s ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; ds leFkZu esa nLrkostkr izn'kZ ih&1 yxk;r izn'kZ ih&15 is'k dj iznf'kZr djok;s x;sA

¶27

6. fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rRi'pkr~ izR;FkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 313 na-iz-la- ds rgr ijhf{kr fd;k x;k] ftlesa vfHk;qDrx.k us xokgku ds dFkuksa dks xyr gksuk crk;k ,oa izdj.k ls dksbZ ysuk&nsuk ugha gksuk dFku djrs gq, lk{; izfrj{kk esa xokg Mh-M-&1 MkW- Å"kk vxzoky ds c;ku ys[kc) djok, x, rFkk nLrkosth lk{;

¶28

(4 of 12)

¶29

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶30

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶31

esa nLrkostkr izn'kZ Mh-&1 yxk;r izn'kZ Mh-&3 is'k dj iznf'kZr djok;s x;sA

¶32

7. fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rRi'pkr mHk;i{kksa dks lquk tkdj vkykSP; fu.kZ; fnukad 18&12&1997 }kjk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr ujksRre dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 302] 498, Hkk-na-la- rFkk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr jes'k dks vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 201 Hkk-na-la- ds vkjksiksa ls lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr fd;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj gLrxr vihy] vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; }kjk mUgsa vkjksfir vijk/kkas esa nks"kfl) dj nf.Mr djus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶33

8. fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk dFku gS fd izdj.k esa xokg xaxk/kj ,oa jruckbZ ds dFkuksa ls izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk fookg mijkUr erdk gseyrk dks ngst dh ekax dks ysdj rax] ijs'kku ,oa ekjihV djuk ,oa xokg lfjrk tks fd erdk dh iq=h gS] mlds dFkuksa ls vfHk;qDr ujksRre }kjk e`rdk gseyrk dh xyk nckdj gR;k djuk izekf.kr gqvk gS] fdarq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij izLrqr lk{; dk lw{erk ls ,oa xgurk ls voyksdu fd, fcuk vius vkykSP; vkns'k fnukafdr 18&12&1997 }kjk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr ujksRre dks mlds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/kksa ls lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] mDr vkns'k fof/klEer ugha gksus ls vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vihy] vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; Lohdkj djrs gq, izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr la[;k&1 ujksRre dks mlds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/kksa es a nks"kfl) dj nf.Mr fd;k tkosA

¶34

9. fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk nkSjkus cgl dFku gS fd erdk gseyrk ds fMyhojh ds ckn ekufld ,oa 'kkjhfjd :i ls chekj gksus ls chekjh ds dkj.k mldh izkdfrd e`R;q gqbZ gS] ftldh iqf"V xokg ewypUn] uUnfd'kksj] /kujkt vkSj izsepUn ds dFkuksa ls gqbZ gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd xokg xaxk/kj ,oa jruckbZ ds izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk ngst dh ekax djus ckcr~ dFku Hkh fo'oluh; ugha gSa] D;ksafd mUgksaus vius dFkuksa esa muls ngst dh ekax dc dh] bl ckjs esa dksbZ Li"V dFku ugha fd, gSa ,oa muds }kjk bl lanHkZ esa

¶35

(5 of 12)

¶36

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶37

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶38

iwoZ esa dksbZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd e`rdk dks 2]000@& #i;s nsus ds laca/k esa Hkh muds dFkuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd izdj.k esa ngst dh ekax dh iqf"V esa dksbZ Lora= xokg Hkh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA

¶39

10. fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd xokg ih-M-&7 lfjrk us vius c;kuksa esa mldk oDr ?kVuk lks;k gqvk gksuk ,oa U;k;ky; ds le{k dFku mldh ukuh ds dgs vuqlkj djuk dFku fd;k gS] ftlls mlds ?kVuk ns[kus ckcr~ dFku fo'oluh; ugha gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij izLrqr lk{; dk lw{erk ls ,oa xgurk ls fo'ys"k.k djus ds mijkar tks fu"d"kZ izfrikfnr fd;k gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd ,oa rF;kRed =qfV ugha gS] og iw.kZr;k fof/k lEer gS] mlesa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vr% vihy] vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkosA

¶40

11. geus vihyh; i=koyh dk e; vfHkys[k lEekuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k rFkk mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij xaHkhjrkiwoZd euu fd;kA

¶41

12. gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu i{k dk ;g dsl jgk gS fd izR;FkhZ&vfHk;qDr us erdk gseyrk dks] mlls fookg mijkar ngst dh ekax dks ysdj ekjihV dh ,oa fnukad 27&12&1996 dks mldh Nkrh ij cSBdj xyk nckdj mldh eR;q dkfjr dh !

¶42

13. gLrxr izdj.k esa mDr vfHk;kstu dgkuh ds leFkZu esa xokg ih-M-&7 lfjrk tks fd e`rdk dh pkj o"khZ; iq=h gS] mls vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gSA

¶43

14. cky lk{kh dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ds lanHkZ esa fof/k dk ;g lqizfrikfnr fl)kar gS fd U;k;ky; dks mldh lk{; ij fopkj djrs oDr vR;f/kd lko/kkuh ,oa lrdZrk cjruh pkfg,] D;ksafd cky lk{kh ds izHkkfor ¼V;wVMZ½ fd, tkus dh laHkkouk vR;f/kd izcy gksrh gS ,oa cky lk{kh dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ls iwoZ izR;sd ekeys esa U;k;ky; dks vko';d :i ls ;g ns[kuk pkfg, fd cky lk{kh }kjk fd;k x;k dFku fdlh ls izHkkfor gksdj rks ugha fd;k x;k gSA

¶44

(6 of 12)

¶45

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶46

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶47

15. ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;kf;d n`"Vkar Mangoo and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1995 SC 959 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶48

"There was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The Court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are any traces of tutoring."

¶49

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;kf;d n`"Vkar Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra; 1997 (5) SCC 341 ds ekeys esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶50

"A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable on such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any

¶51

(7 of 12)

¶52

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶53

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶54

other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."

¶55

Ratansinh Dalsukhabhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat;(2004) 1 SCC 64 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶56

"Child witness - evidence of conviction on the basis of - held, permissible if such witness is found to be competent to testify and the court after careful scrutiny of its evidence is convinced about the quality and reliability of the same."

¶57

Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and ors. v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2008 SC 1460 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶58

"The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-

¶59

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶60

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶61

(8 of 12)

¶62

believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness."

¶63

Hari Om V. State of U.P. (2021) 4SCC 345 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius QSlys ds iSjk 22 esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd&%

¶64

"22. The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is require to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. If the child witness is shown to have stood the test of crossexamination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based upon her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the

¶65

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶66

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶67

(9 of 12)

¶68

testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal circumstances, would like to mix up what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not. The evidence of the child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus an easy prey to tutoring. The evidence of the child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon, as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law."

¶69

16. gLrxr izdj.k esa mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa ;fn cky lk{kh ih-M-&7 lfjrk dh lk{; ij fopkj djsa rks mDr lk{kh us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa mldh eEeh dks mlds ikik }kjk xyk nckdj ekjuk dFku fd;k x;k gS] fdarq mlus viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og bl ?kVuk ls igys lks xbZ

¶70

(10 of 12)

¶71

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶72

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶73

Fkh ,oa lqcg rM+ds mBh Fkh ,oa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus tks vHkh ckr crkbZ gS og lHkh ukuh ds dgus ls fy[kokbZ FkhA lk{kh ds c;kuksa ds voyksdu ls Hkh mlds }kjk U;k;ky; esa gka esa gka ,oa uk esa uk iz'uksa esa mRrj nsuk ,oa vf/kdrj iz'uksa ds tokc esa ekSu jgdj tokc ugha nsuk izdV gksrk gSA izdj.k esa U;k;ky; us mlds c;ku ds uhps Hkh ;g uksV vafdr fd;k gS fd ^^cPph vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk }kjk fd, x, lokyksa dks ugha le> jgh gS ,oa tokc ugha nsuk pkgrh gS] cPph ijs'kku&lh gS] blfy, xokg dks #[klr fd;k tkrk gS]** ftlls gLrxr izdj.k esa mlds eq[; ijh{kk esa fd, x, dFkuksa fd fo'oluh;rk iw.kZr;k ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs fl) ugha gks ikrh gSA

¶74

17. gLrxr izdj.k esa tgka rd xokg xaxk/kj ,oa jruckbZ tks fd erdk ds ekrk&firk gS] ds dFku fd] ujksRre }kjk erdk ls fookg mijkar ngst dh ekax dks ysdj ekjihV dh Fkh ,oa mls 2]000@& #i;s ngst dh ekax dh iwfrZ esa fn, x, Fks] dk lanHkZ gS rks bl lanHkZ esa mDr nksuksa xokgku us ngst dh ekax ,oa erdk ls ekjihV fdl frfFk] ekg] o"kZ esa dh xbZ] bl laca/k esa dksbZ Li"V dFku ugha fd, gSA bl lanHkZ esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd xokg ih-M-&5 xaxk/kj us mldh iq=h dks mlds }kjk 2]000@& #i;s nsuk dFku fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq xokg ih-M-&6 jruckbZ us mlds }kjk 2]000@& #i;s nsuk dFku fd;k gS] bl lanHkZ esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd xokg xaxk/kj us vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh&1 esa 2]000@& #i;s fMyhojh ds fy, nsuk dFku fd;k gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa erdk gseyrk ds lkFk iwoZ esa ekjihV gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ esfMdy fjiksVZ Hkh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha gqbZ gS] cfYd xokg ih-M-&10 ewypUn] ih-M-&11 uUnfd'kksj] ih-M-&12 /kujkt ,oa xokg ih-M-&13 izsepUn us vius&vius c;kuksa esa fMyhojh ds le; erdk gseyrk ds 'kjhj esa [kwu dh deh gksdj] mlds fnekx dk bykt pyuk] chekjh ds dkj.k mldh eR;q gksuk] ujksRre }kjk gseyrk ds lkFk ekjihV ugha djuk ,oa mls lq[kiwoZd j[kuk dFku fd;k gSA xokg xaxk/kj us Hkh

¶75

(11 of 12)

¶76

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶77

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶78

vius c;kuksa esa gseyrk ds lkFk ujksRre }kjk ekjihV ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ,oa izdj.k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd e`rdk ds 'ko dk iksLVekVZe Hkh ugha djok;k x;k gS ,oa fjiksVZ Hkh ?kVuk ds rhu fnu ckn ntZ djkbZ xbZ gS ,oa mls nsjh ls ntZ djkus dk dksbZ ;Fkksfpr dkj.k Hkh i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA

¶79

18. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd :-

¶80

“38. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows:

¶81

“8. xxx xxx xxx

¶82

8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

¶83

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

¶84

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

¶85

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

¶86

(12 of 12)

¶87

[2026:RJ-JP:14152-DB]

¶88

[CRLA-173/2001]

¶89

Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

¶90

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶91

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

¶92

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”

¶93

19. ,sls esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; rFkk mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu ds i’pkr~ ge bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaps gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 18&12&1997 esa dksbZ fof/kd o rF;kRed =qfV ugha gS ,oa og iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS ,oa vihy] vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶94

20. ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&jktLFkku jkT; ds }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy ,rn~}kjk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckajk ¼jktLFkku½ }kjk ls'ku izdj.k l a [;k 10@1997] muokuh izdj.k jktLFkku jkT; cuke ujksRre o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18&12&1997 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

¶95

21. bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ds lkFk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks fHktokbZ tkosA

¶96

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶97

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶98

RAHUL KUMAR KHANDELWAL /51

State of Raj. v. Narottam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Narottam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. Vs Kamal Kumar

Shiv Raj Gurjar S/O Raghuvar Dayal Gurjar B/C Gurjr Vs State of Rajasthan

Aradhana Tripathi W/O Shri Akhilesh Tripathi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Balram Singh Yadav S/O Shri Modya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Vinod Kanwar Alias Veenu W/O Shri Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Shreef S/O Imamudeen Vs State of Rajasthan