[2025:RJ-JP:22930] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 132/2007 Jagdish Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Chhagan Singh, R/o House No. 26, Dadu Marg, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur At Present R/o 56, Kalyan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp 2. Ratan Singh S/o Babu Singh, R/o Maheshpura, Police Station Harmada, Distt. Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surender Kumar Nagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/05/2025 1. Instant Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner complainant- Jagdish Singh Chauhan aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 07.11.2006 in sessions case No. 01/2006 arising out of FIR No. 350/2005 registered at Police Station, Chomu, District Jaipur. The petitioner has challenged impugned order whereby respondents-accused Ratan Singh S/o Babu Singh was acquitted from charge under Sections 397 IPC. 2. Considered submission of learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:22930] (2 of 4) [CRLR-132/2007] 4. Initially, FIR No. 350/2005 under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 384 IPC was registered at Police Station, Chomu, District Jaipur and after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against respondent No.2 Ratan Singh under Section 397 IPC. 5. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.2-accused from charge under Section 397 IPC. 6. A perusal of record clearly indicate that complainant- Guman Singh who was examined as PW-6 was declared hostile and he has not supported the case of prosecution. Out of total 6 witnesses, PW-2 Vaksh Singh, PW-5 Jai Singh were police witnesses whereas PW-1 Dr. R.S. Rajawat is a medical jurist who prepared injury report Ex. P.1 of petitioner-injured Jagdish Singh. PW-4 Rajesh is a formal witness. 7. The only person available is on record is PW-3 Jagdish who is present petitioner. In his Examination-in-Chief PW-3 has stated that Laxman Singh and Babu Singh has assaulted him but they were 8-10 persons. He further stated that his mobile, watch, wallet and ₹7,000/- were robed by these persons. The only evidence about that Ratan Singh is that he followed him. There is no evidence about involvement of Ratan Singh and there is no corroboration of incident by any one. 8. Having considered the evidence and material on record, I am of the considered view that on basis of evidence on record, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 accused from [2025:RJ-JP:22930] (3 of 4) [CRLR-132/2007] charge under Section 397 IPC and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 9. 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. 10. 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- [2025:RJ-JP:22930] (4 of 4) [CRLR-132/2007] 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. 11. Thus, there is no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 12. As a result, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 132/2007 stands dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /62