SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarita vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2021

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)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation