HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1010 / 2011
Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, D/o Shri Jogaram, B/c
Sagarwanshi Mali, R/o Sampurnanand Colony, Presently R/o Near
Sarjavav Gate, Sirohi, Tehsil District- Sirohi.
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Vena Ram, By Caste- Sagarwanshi
Mali R/o Sampurnanand Colony, Sirohi, Tehsil District- Sirohi.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyaya, PP.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
This revision has been preferred by the petitioner
complainant against the judgment dated 26.7.2011 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011
whereby, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment dated
13.11.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi
in Criminal Regular Case No.381/2005 acquitting the respondent
no.2 Kamlesh Kumar from the charge under 498A IPC.
Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and after going through the
impugned judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that two
Courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings
(2 of 2)
of facts disbelieving the prosecution case and acquitting the
respondent. A perusal of the trial Court’s judgment clearly
discloses that the evidence led by the petitioner complainant was
appreciated in a totally just and appropos fashion and finding the
same to be highly vacillating and contradictory, the accused was
acquitted of the charge. The judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court has been confirmed in the appeal as well. In a revision
against acquittal, the powers of High Court are curtailed by virtue
of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. as per which, finding of acquittal cannot
be converted in one of conviction. Since the impugned judgments
do not suffer from any infirmity or shortcoming whatsoever, I am
not inclined to entertain this revision for interfering therein.
Hence, the same is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.