HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 736/2006 Rashmi wife of Shri Dayanand Mahajan d/o Shri Vishnu Chand resident of Old Truck Union, Karauli, Dist. Karauli ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Dinesh son of Shri Raghuveer Dayal 3. Raghuveer Dayal son of Varkhandi Lal 4. Smt. Neena Gupta wife of Sh. Dinesh Chand (All resident of 795, Barkat Nagar, P.S. Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hateela For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/07/2025 1. Considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Having gone through the impugned order dated 27.03.2006 in criminal case No.38/2006 (444/2001) whereby after full trial, learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli has acquitted respondent No.2 to 4 from charge under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. 3. We have considered evidence of record led by prosecution before the trial court and also considered the reasons as assigned by learned trial court. After considering the reasons assigned by the trial court and the material available on record, I am of considered view that no case is made out for interference as the (2 of 3) [CRLR-736/2006] trial court has recorded the acquittal and we are considering revision petition against judgment of acquittal after full trial. 4.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 strengthend by the Trial Court. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State 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 (3 of 3) [CRLR-736/2006] keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 6. There is no ground to convert order of acquittal to conviction, therefore the revision petition sans merit and same is hereby dismissed. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J) PREETI VALECHA /04