1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT CHANDGIRAM GIRI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 347 of 1997 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 6, 1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1996 whereby the judgment dated August 3, 1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu passed in criminal case No. 541 of 1993 convicting the accused for offence under sections 451 and 354 IPC was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Hari Prasad Jangid for Mr. A.N. Khan, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Ranjan, for the non-petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Chandgiram, against the order dated March 6, 1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1996 whereby the judgment dated August 3, 1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu passed in criminal case No. 541 of 1993 convicting the accused for offence under sections 451 and 354 IPC was set aside and the 2 accused was acquitted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Chandgiram PW.2 lodged a report on June 13, 1990 at Police Station Jhunjhunu. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No. 207 of 1990 was chalked out for offence under section 354 IPC. The police submitted final report thereupon petitioner field a protest petition on June 7, 1993. The Magistrate vide order dated September 30, 1993 took cognizance of offence under sections 451 and 354 IPC and issued summons. On July 17, 1995 the trial court framed charge for offence under sections 451 and 354 IPC and the same were read over to the petitioner to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. In defence the accused examined himself as DW.1 and submitted the documentary evidence. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted the accused for 3 offence under sections 451 and 354 IPC and sentenced to six months RI on each count and fine of Rs. 250 was imposed in default he was directed to suffer one month simple imprisonment. The accused petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate court, but the appellate court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated March 6, 1997. Aggrieved against the judgment of the appellate court the petitioner preferred this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellate court without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for offences charged against him. The appellate court while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. The learned counsel contended that the appellate court did not consider the statement of prosecutrix Mst. Manohari. The appellate court erred 4 in disbelieving the case simply because other witnesses were from same family and this is against the settled principle of criminal law. The FIR was lodged lately, therefore it is fatal to the case and in fact there is an explanation for late lodging FIR, but the appellate court has not considered the same. The appellate court need not have taken different view other than trial court. Hence the judgment of the trial court be maintained and the judgment of the appellate court be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the appellate court after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appellate court and the judgment of the trial court was rightly set aside by the 5 appellate court, which is based on proper reasonings. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the appellate court is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the proceedings on behalf of the complainant were preplanned and the same were politically motivated and most of the witnesses were relatives related with each other. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. For these reasons the order passed by the appellate court does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction 6 and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/