[2025:RJ-JP:17208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1123/2004 Ram Karan Son Of Shri Jaggu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ajitgarh, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ladli Das Son Of Shri Ramdev, Resident Of Village And Post Ajitgarh, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Ramswaroop Son Of Shri Narayan Das, Resident Of Of Village And Post Ajitgarh, Police Station Ait Garh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). (Died) 3. Mahesh Kumar Son Of Shri Sidha Narayan, Resident Of Village And Post Ajitgarh, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar ( Rajasthan). (Died) 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/04/2025 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted report received from concerned police station informing about death of respondent No.2 Ramswaroop and respondent No.3 Mahesh Kumar. 2. The revision petition stands abated qua respondent No.2 and 3, but it survives against respondent No.1. 3. The whereabouts of respondent No.1 are not traceable as no body has heard about him for last 20-25 years. 4. Heard learned counsel for complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:17208] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2004] 5. In a matter arising out of FIR NO.47/1997 P.S. Ajitgarh, Sikar, police has filed a charge-sheet against Ladli Das, Ramswaroop and Mahesh Kumar. Learned ACJM, Neem-ka-thana, Dist.Sikar after full trial has acquitted three accused from charge under Sections 467 rws 120B, 468 and 471 IPC. 6. Aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 21.09.2004, instant revision petition is preferred by complainant petitioner. Herein we are only considering case against respondent No.1. 7. We have considered the evidence as placed on record. The dispute between the parties pertains to Will dated 16.06.1985 which was allegedly executed by Balakdas and same was termed as forged and fabricated. After the evidence of PW-2 Banwari, who is brother of complainant Ramkaran and PW-10 Ramkaran, the trial court has opined that prosecution has failed to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has also observed that even the specimen signatures were not sent for comparison and examination to FSL. The observation of trial court clearly indicated that there were shortcomings in the investigation carried by police. The evidence clearly suggested that some other litigation in civil court or revenue court is also filed and from the facts disclosed in said suit, the complainant came to know about execution of questioned Will. In a criminal case any charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case, only on the basis of preponderance of probability a fact may be proved. Since it is a criminal case therefore strict proof of any allegation is necessary and the observation about evidence of complainant and his brother clearly indicated that the prosecution has failed to establish necessary ingredient of fabrication and [2025:RJ-JP:17208] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2004] conspiracy. There is material contradictions in the evidence, as discussed by the trial court. After considering the evidence both oral and otherwise, I am of considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. There are no grounds of interference. 8. 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. 9. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17208] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2004] 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 keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 10. Accordingly, present revision petition is hereby dismissed. 11. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /03