HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 14 / 2015
Smt. Chandrakala W/o Shri Nandlal D/o Sh. Badri Singh, by caste
Kachhawaha, resident of Nathusar, Malion Ka Bas, Bikaner (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan.

2. Nandlal S/o Shri Dalchand, by caste Mali, resident of
Sardarsahar, presently Superintendent of Police, Pali (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. With Mr.
Pradeep Choudhary.

For Respondent-State: Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, PP.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sunil Mehta.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
15/05/2017

Petitioner-complainant feeling aggrieved by judgment dated

21.11.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner (for

short, ‘learned appellate Court’), whereby learned appellate Court

confirmed the verdict of acquittal dated 04.12.2006, passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.2, Bikaner (for short,

‘learned trial Court’), has preferred this revision petition under

Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. Initially, the learned trial Court, vide its

judgment dated 04.12.2006, acquitted accused-respondent for

offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC giving him benefit of

doubt. Subsequently, the learned appellate Court, while

concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial

Court, affirmed the same.

(2 of 6)
[CRLR-14/2015]

In brief, facts of the case are that petitioner-complainant

filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner

stating therein that she was married with second respondent

Nandlal on 20.11.1989 and at the time of marriage sufficient

dowry was given by her family. It is alleged that after marriage,

accused-respondent was selected in police service as Sub

Inspector and thereafter he started subjecting the petitioner to

physical and mental cruelty. An allegation for demand of dowry is

also made in the complaint. It is also alleged in the complaint that

while the accused was posted at Chhatargarh, he was suspended

and at that time also he raised a demand of Rs.50,000/-. The

accused ultimately turned her out from the house and refused to

return dowry articles.

The learned Magistrate sent the complaint to concerned

police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police

registering FIR No.294/1994 started investigation. Accused-

respondent was prosecuted for offence under Sections 498-A and

406 IPC by filing charge-sheet. Learned trial Court framed

charge against him for aforesaid offence and on denial, he was put

on trial. In order to prove charge against accused-respondent,

prosecution examined eleven witnesses and got exhibited thirty-

four documents. Subsequently, statement of accused-respondent

was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and, in defence, he

examined three witnesses and exhibited nineteen documents.

Learned trial Court, then, proceeded to hear final arguments and

by its verdict dated 04.12.2006 acquitted the accused-respondent

extending him benefit of doubt.

(3 of 6)
[CRLR-14/2015]

Feeling dismayed with the verdict of acquittal, State

approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate

Court vide order dated 11.06.2008 remanded the matter back to

learned trial Court to decide the matter afresh. Being aggrieved

with the order dated 11.06.2008, accused-respondent filed a

revision petition before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 12.05.2011 rejected the same on the ground of

limitation.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by

this Court, accused-respondent filed a Criminal Appeal before the

Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 07.03.2014

allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order dated

11.06.2008 passed by the appellate Court and order dated

12.05.2011 passed by this Court and remitted the matter back to

appellate Court for deciding the appeal filed by the respondent-

State in accordance with law after independently appreciating the

evidence and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

On remand, the appellate Court made endeavour to

appreciate the evidence available on record. After scrutinizing

the entire evidence and other materials available on record, the

learned appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and

conclusions of learned trial Court, which entailed dismissal of the

appeal vide judgment dated 21.11.2014. It is, in that

background, petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this

Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record.

(4 of 6)
[CRLR-14/2015]

Upon examining the impugned judgment of learned trial

Court, it is abundantly clear that it has made sincere endeavour to

appreciate the evidence while recording its finding favouring the

accused-respondent for extending him benefit of doubt. It is trite

that learned appellate Court also examined the entire evidence

with bird’s eye view for determining alleged culpability of the

accused-respondent for aforesaid offence and concluded in clear

and unequivocal terms that learned trial Court has rightly

exercised its discretion in extending the benefit of doubt.

While exercising revisional jurisdiction, court is only to see

procedural error, irregularity and non-appreciating and non-

application of law. Re-appreciation of evidence is not desirable

under the revisional jurisdiction. It is also trite that this Court in

revision cannot embark on sufficiency of materials before the

court below for recording its satisfaction. As both the Courts

below have examined the matter threadbare in its entirety and

have arrived at a finding concurrently which is based on sound

appreciation of evidence, the same is not liable to be tinkered with

in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In my considered opinion,

revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the verdict of acquittal is

required to be exercised with utmost caution and circumspection.

Legal position is no more res-integra that against a verdict of

acquittal, revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised only in

exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require

interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of

gross miscarriage of justice. Reliance, in this behalf, can

profitably be made to a decision of Supreme Court in Kaptan
(5 of 6)
[CRLR-14/2015]

Singh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh [1997 4 Supreme 211].

The Supreme Court, in yet another judgment rendered in K.

Ramachandran V/s. V.N. Rajan Anr. [(2009) 14 SCC 569],

examined the scope of judicial review under Section 401 Cr.P.C.

against the verdict of acquittal, on revision by private

complainant, and held:

“In this very judgment in Akalu Ahri Case though
in para 10, this Court did not generally approve of the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court Judge and
held it to be not perfect or free from flaw and further
observed “the court of appeal may be justified in
disagreeing with the conclusion, but it does not follow
that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court
is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence for itself as if
it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial”.
The situation, as we will show further, is identical in the
present case.

In a later judgment, the Supreme Court has culled out

certain instances for exercising revisional jurisdiction at the

instance of private complainant against a verdict of acquittal. In

case of Sheetala Prasad V/s. Sri Kant Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 190],

following guidelines are issued by the Supreme Court:

“(1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to
produce;

(2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed
aside as inadmissible;

(3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the
case and has still acquitted the accused;
(4) where the material evidence has been overlooked
either by the trial court or the appellate court or
the order is passed by considering irrelevant
evidence; and
(5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding
of the offence which is invalid under the law.”

(6 of 6)
[CRLR-14/2015]

In view of settled law and guidelines enumerated

hereinabove, the case in hand is not covered within the four

corners of any of the guidelines, therefore, it is not worthwhile to

entertain this petition.

Accordingly, I feel dissuaded to exercise revisional

jurisdiction in the matter to interfere with the verdict of acquittal

passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate

Court.

Resultantly, the petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

a.asopa/-13