[2025:RJ-JP:42181] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1400/2006 Smt. Anju wife of Virendra Singh, aged about 24 years, resident of Naghodi Police Station Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. ----Petitioner-Complainant Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the P.P. ----Non Petitioner 2. Virendra Kumar son of Shri Buggaram, aged about 31 years, resident of Naghodi Police Station Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. ----Accused-Non Petitioner For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar. For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. Ms. Nisha Jhaknariya Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 08/10/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has assailed judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Behror, District Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’), whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of charges framed against him for commission of offences punishable under Section 376/511 the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. It is stated that one criminal complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Behror revealing therein that the [2025:RJ-JP:42181] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1400/2006] prosecutrix went for open defecation in the agricultural field on 01.01.2005 where Respondent No. 2-accused Virendra Kumar made an attempt to rape her and he failed in such attempt on account of the fact that after shouting by the prosecutrix, other persons came to the site of incident and in their presence, the accused ran away. As husband of the prosecutrix was not there and he returned back only on 02.01.2005, therefore, after his return from out of station visit, the prosecutrix along with her husband went to lodge the FIR at Police Station Shahjahanpur where instead of lodging FIR, the police officers coined one or another execuses and on 20.01.2005, SHO of the police station refused to lodge the FIR. There was government holiday on 21.01.2005 and hence, complaint was submitted before the court below on 22.01.2005. On such complaint, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken by the trial court against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC and committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge under Section 376/511 IPC was framed against Respondent No. 2-accused who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents. Thereafter, statement of Respondent No. 2-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he also led defence evidence by producing himself as D.W.1 and exhibited as many as 20 documents in his defence. 3. After hearing both the sides, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 acquitted Respondent No. [2025:RJ-JP:42181] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1400/2006] 2-accused of the charges framed against him under Section 376/511 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the trial court is based upon total misappreciation of evidence and law prevailing at the relevant time. The trial court has committed serious error of law in not exercising the jurisdiction otherwise vested in it. Bare perusal of judgment dated 22.09.2006 passed by the trial court would reveal material illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment. Consistent evidence led by the prosecution has been ignored and misread by the trial court and merely on hyper technical grounds, the evidence led by the prosecution has been disbelieved and the respondent-accused has been wrongly been acquitted by the trial court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-accused opposed the revision petition and submitted that after meticulous examination of the case and evidence on record as also applicable law, the trial court has rightly acquitted Respondent No. 2-accused vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2006. It has been submitted that while arriving at the finding of acquittal, the trial court has properly analysed the evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the trial court and revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:42181] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1400/2006] 6. I have considered the submissions put forward by learned counsel for the parties as also carefully examined the record of the case. 7. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that for the purpose of convicting an accused, the prosecution is required to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, it would reveal that the evidence led by the prosecution was totally inconsistent and shaky. The trial court properly appraised the statements of prosecution witnesses. It has been recorded in the impugned judgment that Hansraj (P.W.2); Raghuveer (P.W.3) and Usha Devi (P.W.4) were interested witnesses whose statements were self-contradictory and on account of their conduct, their statements cannot be believed and relied upon. It has also been discussed by the trial court on the basis of evidence that admittedly, there was lavatory at the house of the prosecutrix and no reasons whatsoever was given for visiting the agricultural field on the date of incident for opened defecation. Considerable delay in instituting criminal complaint has also not been proper explained by the prosecution. Even as per the evidence based on the site map would suggest that despite there being grown up crop, it was not found shattered on account of alleged incident. It has also come out that although, the crop was properly watered and the soil was wet, yet no particle of sand was found on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the accused. 8. It has also come out on record that there was ongoing litigation between the accused side and the prosecutrix side. Therefore, the possibility of prior animosity cannot be ruled out [2025:RJ-JP:42181] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1400/2006] and it cannot be ignored that the complaint was lodged in order to exert undue pressure over Respondent No. 2-accused for such ongoing litigation. No external or internal injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and no reason has also been given to justify that when so many persons gathered at the site of incident, then why they did not catch hold of the accused and rather allowed him to run away. 9. For the reasons mentioned herenabove, I find that sound reasoning on the basis of material and evidence on record has been recorded by the trial court while acquitting Respondent No. 2-accused vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2006. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any jurisdictional error, material illegality and irregularity or even perversity in judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the trial court. 10. In view of above, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and the revision petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court forthwith. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /5