HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 536/2007 Govind Singh son of Shri Hari Singh, aged 45 years, resident of Abhora, P.S. Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1.State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o late Shri Dori Lal, resident of Jaijairam Mohalla, Attawali Gali, Kasganj (Uttar Pradesh). 3. Parvati wife of Dinesh Chand, resident of Jaijairam Mohalla, Attar Wali Gali, Kasganj (U.P.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Dy.GA-cum-PP Mr. N.K. Singhal with Mr. Vikas Sharma and Mr. Bantoo Mali JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/10/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.3, Bharatpur, by which the accused respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 366, 376, 120B and 366/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that a report Exhibit-P1 was registered with Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur, wherein it was alleged by the complainant-petitioner that he was posted as Head Constable in Rajasthan Police and residing (2 of 5) [CRLR-536/2007] at Kota with family. Around 9.00 AM in the morning on 29.05.2006, his daughter “B” age 21 years went to jungle to discharge the call of nature, where the accused-Mahesh Sharma, Parvati, Yogesh Chandra came in a Marshal vehicle and forcefully abducted his daughter “B”, thereafter, he made several efforts to trace her out, but she could not be traced and she was abducted by above three persons. 3. Upon this report, crime No.240/2006 was registered with Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused respondents No.2 and 3, thereafter charges were framed against Mahesh Sharma for the offence under Section 366, 376 and 120-B IPC and against the accused Parwati under Section 366/120-B IPC. Both accused denied charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Thereafter, explanations of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they denied their participation in the incident and submitted that they have been falsely booked in the instant case, but in defence, no evidence was produced by them. 5. After appreciating all the evidence available on the record and after hearing counsel for the parties, learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused from all the charges vide judgment dated 25.04.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has (3 of 5) [CRLR-536/2007] approached this Court by way of filing the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused-respondents abducted the prosecutrix PW-3 “B” and thereafter, the accused Mahesh Chand Sharma sexually assaulted her and committed rape on her. Counsel submits that allegation of rape and abduction has been proved by the witnesses beyond reasonable doubt, but in-spite of above, the evidence by the prosecution witnesses were misread and the benefit of doubt has been wrongly extended to the accused-respondents, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of 21 years at the time of alleged incident. She has performed marriage with the accused Mahesh Chand Sharma in Arya Samaj and she wrote several love letters to the petitioner as well, which indicate that she was a consenting party. Counsel submits that after solemnization of marriage with the accused Mahesh Chand Sharma, she visited with him at several places such as Delhi, Aligarh, Agra, Kasganj and travelled in train, bus, rickshaw and stayed in several hotels and dharamshalas. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, this fact was established on the record that no forceful sexual act was committed with her and by appreciating all these facts, the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused- (4 of 5) [CRLR-536/2007] respondents by recording a cogent finding by the Trial Court, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents of defence, which have been exhibited during the course of trial, indicate that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of 21 years and she has travelled in the company of the accused at several places such as Delhi, Aligarh, Kasganj, Hindaun etc. in several public transportation and stayed at several hotels and dharamshalas. Even the photographs and the letters written by the prosecutrix to the accused-Mahesh Chand Sharma are available on record, which indicate that there was a love affair between both of them. Appreciating all above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the medical evidence, which is not corroborated with the oral allegations, benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused-respondents. 11. This Court finds that the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, a finding of fact has been recorded by acquitting the accused- respondent from all the charges levelled against them. 12. This Court is of the considered opinion that finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court is just & proper and after appreciation of evidence available on record. This Court does (5 of 5) [CRLR-536/2007] not find any error in the findings recorded by the Court below either factually or legally, therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. 13. In this background, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending applications, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KUD/12