[2025:RJ-JP:24213] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 41/2019 Ramswaroop S/o Narsingh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Sherpur Ps Kotwali Dist. Sawaimadhopur ----Appellant Versus 1. Abdul Kadir S/o Namalum, Owner Hotel Tinger Moon Resort Sherpur 2. Farida W/o Abdul Kadir, R/o Hotel Tiger Moon Resort Sherpur Teh. And Dist. Sawaimadhopur 3. Sailendra Singh S/o Prabhat Singh, Tiger Moon Resort At Present Manager Hotel Ranthambore Kothi Tiger Den Hotel Ke Pass Ranthambore Road Sawaimadhopur 4. The State Of Raj. Through Pp, Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma for Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/07/2025 1. Instant Leave to Appeal is preferred by Appellant Complainant, aggrieved from order dated 26.11.3018 in Sessions Case No. 50/2016, passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST, (POA Act Cases) Sawaimadhapur, whereby respondents No. 1 to 3, were acquitted from charge under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Considered submission of learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:24213] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-41/2019] 3. The brief facts giving rise to instant leave to appeal are that on the basis of a complaint filed by a complainant Ram Swaroop before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur, an order of cognizance was passed against Abdul, Farida, Shailendra, and Rahul. In a revision filed by Rahul, Learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur has discharged Rahul from all charges but on revision petition filed by Abdul, Farida, and Sailendra, maintained cognizance up to the extent of offence under Section 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Learned Special Judge has framed charge against the accused. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited two documents. The accused were examined under section 313 CrPC whereas defense has examined DW1 Abdul and exhibited two documents. The trial court has acquitted respondent accused Abdul, Farida, and Shailendra. 4. We have conceded evidence of victim PW1 and also cross examination. In evidence he named Ram Khiladi and Pappu as eyewitness. Ram Khiladi was examined as PW3 whereas Pappu examined as PW2 and we have considered the statement of PW2 and PW3. Two more witnesses PW4 and PW5 were examined by prosecution. 5. A perusal of discussion and deliberation by trial court indicate that there is a substantial delay in reporting the matter. There is no evidence to suggest that after the incident, complainant victim has approached the police. Moreover, only on the basis of oral evidence of complainant an order of cognizance was passed and when this complainant victim was cross examined the discrepancies about the incident were brought on record and same were mentioned by the trial court. The discrepancies were also [2025:RJ-JP:24213] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-41/2019] found in the statement of other witnesses and ultimately the respondent accused were acquitted. 6. Since we are considering leave to appeal in a complaint case from an order of acquittal wherein the trial court raised serious doubt over the incident and bona fides of the complainant. The bona fides of complainant remain doubtful throughout the evidence and trial court has observed about the complainant. The complainant is pursuing case since 2006 and the fact indicated that complainant has also filed a case in the Labour court. The complainant has acted on legal advice as he has already served a legal notice before instituting present complaint. The trial court has rightly considered the evidence while drawing a conclusion of acquittal against respondents-accused. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State [2025:RJ-JP:24213] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-41/2019] Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 8. Considering the evidence and legal position, I am of considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. 9. Hence, leave to appeal sans merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the discussion made herein above, instant leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /30