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 1- State of Rajasthan through P.P. .... NON-PETITIONER 2. Ram Prasad S/o Kanhaiya Lal, 3. Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal, 4. Parmanand S/o Ram Kishan, 5. Mangi Lal S/o Babu Lal, 6- Mohan Lal S/o Babu Lal, 7 Satya Narayan S/o Madan Lal 8. Mukesh Kumar S/o Madan Lal 9. Babu Lal S/o Mangla, 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 1. By way of filing this revision petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chabra, District Baran by which the accused respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 341, 148, 307 and 307 read with 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2004, the complainant-Mangi Lal lodged a written report with the Police Station, Chabra alleging therein that on 15.11.2004 he along with (2 of 5) [CRLR-537/2006] 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. 3. Upon this report, crime No. 283/2004 was registered for the above mentioned offences and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused respondents and charges were framed against them for the above stated offences which they denied and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the statements of as many as 18 witnesses were exhibited. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent No. 3 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his participation in the incident and submitted that he has falsely been booked but in his defence no evidence was produced. After completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2006 acquitted all the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal revision petition. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the basis of the evidence available on record and from the (3 of 5) [CRLR-537/2006] 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. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the evidence of the prosecution and the judgment passed by the Court below. 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that during the course of trial, statements of several independent witnesses namely PW6- Ram Prasad, PW7-Dhanraj, PW8-Ram Pratap, PW9- Bhagwati Prasad, PW10-Gobarilal, PW11- Jankilal, PW12- Dr. Rajeev Soni, PW13- Nandkishore and PW14- Ganga Bishan were recorded and one of the independent recovery witnesses namely PW13-Nandkishore has not supported the version of prosecution and has been declared as hostile. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment further indicates that the Court below while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it from the right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned court below (4 of 5) [CRLR-537/2006] has rightly acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges. 10. In the case of Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:- “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. 11. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- “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.” 12. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/ revision against the order of conviction on the one hand and the (5 of 5) [CRLR-537/2006] 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. 13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. The learned court below have rightly acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/3