Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 351/2019
Sarita W/o Shri Sunil Kumer, Aged About 47 Years, B/c
Maheshwari , R/o 34 Love Kush Nagar , Near Hatathi Kund ,
Madhuban Chitodgarh . Presently Reside At Naya Bass,
Sujangarh , Distt. Churu
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sunil Kumer S/o Shri Ramprasad Maheshwari (Aagal), R/o
34 Love Kush Nagar, Near Hatathi Kund , Madhuban
Chitodgahr , Presently Reside At Aadity Ciment Factory
(Birla Group) , Tharmal Power Plant Aaditypuram
Shambupura Chitoadharh
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam S. Khatri.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC.
Mr. Sudhir Saruparia.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
06/07/2021
The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner
complainant Smt. Sarita for assailing the Judgment dated
29.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sujangarh, District Churu in appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
whereby, while rejecting the victim’s appeal preferred by the
appellant, the acquittal of the respondent Sunil Kumar from the
charge for offence under Section 498A IPC as recorded by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu vide
judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.04/2013,
has been affirmed.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:47:55 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-351/2019]
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the impugned judgments and the
original record.
On going through the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated
08.12.2017, it is clear that the petitioner had been married thrice
whereas it was the second marriage of the respondent accused.
The vows were exhausted in the Salasar Balaji Temple without any
dowry being given.
Suffice it to say that two courts of competent jurisdiction
have, after thorough appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence
available on record, recorded concurrent findings of facts to the
effect that from the evidence led by the prosecution, the
necessary ingredients of the charge under Section 498A IPC were
not made out against the respondent herein and therefore, he was
acquitted and the acquittal was affirmed as above.
The legal position is clear by virtue of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.
that the High Court, while exercising the revisional powers, cannot
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the only
relief which can be extended in a revision against acquittal would
be to direct a de-novo trial. It is trite that a direction for de-novo
trial is only permissible if there has been a failure of justice in
decision of the case by the trial court.
After appreciating the submissions advanced by the
petitioner’s counsel in light of the evidence available on record, I
am of the firm opinion that no ground is made out to hold that the
acquittal of the respondent by the impugned Judgment dated
08.12.2017 has resulted into failure of justice. As a matter of fact,
the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the respondent
(Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:47:55 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-351/2019]
and the appellate court while affirming the acquittal, was the only
possible and logical view required to be taken in the case.
Thus, the instant revision has no merit and is dismissed as
such.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
42-Tikam/-
(Downloaded on 07/07/2021 at 08:47:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
