Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Khinya Ram on 4 July, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:29353]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 485/1993
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Khinya Ram S/o Bagaram resident of Gagarana Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP.
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
04/07/2026
The instant appeal under Section 378(iii)&(i) of Cr.P.C. is
directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.1993 passed
by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocity) Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.27/92(82/91) titled
as State Vs. Khinya Ram whereby the learned trial court has
acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 376/511 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of
the SC/ST Act.
The relevant facts of the case are that on 15.08.1991 on
Magu Ram submitted a report before the Police Station, Gotan
alleging inter alia that while the prosecutrix, Mst. Bali, was
guarding the crop in the agricultural field, the accused-respondent
trespassed into the field, assaulted her, and attempted to outrage
her modesty and commit rape. It was alleged that upon the
intervention of two women, namely Samudi and Geeta, who
reached the spot on hearing her cries, the accused fled from the
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 02:40:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 08:30:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:29353] (2 of 5) [CRLA-485/1993]
place. Based on the report, a case was registered for offences
under Sections 447, 323 and 376/511 of the IPC as well as
Section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences.
The Trial Court framed charges, to which the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve
witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the defence also adduced evidence.
The learned trial court after sifting through the evidence on
record and considering the allegations and finding the offences not
to be proved against the accused-respondent, acquitted him for
the offences punishable under Sections 447, 376/511 and 323 of
IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of the SC/ST Act.
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal
of the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences.
Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor argued the
appeal, took the Court through the oral testimony of the
complainant who was the father in law of the prosecutrix, and
submitted that having regard to the nature of allegations and
gravity of offences and statements of the material prosecution
witnesses, the learned court below was not justified in acquitting
the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 376/511 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of
the SC/ST Act.
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 02:40:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 08:30:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:29353] (3 of 5) [CRLA-485/1993]
He further argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt
of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
None has appeared on behalf of the accused-respondent.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned
judgment as well as the original record of the case.
On a perusal of the record, the fact that the accused has
willfully trespassed into the field of the complainant where his
daughter-in-law was guarding the crops so also the fact that the
accused has threw the prosecutrix on ground and attempted to
rape her and the accused used force to commit the alleged
offence, have not been aptly proved.
So far as contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the
accused could not have been acquitted for the offence under
Section 376/511 is concerned, the nature of allegation and
statements of the complainant are not sufficient to prove that the
accused approached or trespassed the complainant’s field with a
motive to rape the prosecutrix. So far as acquittal under Section
376 is concerned, it is settled position of law that the High Court
in its appellate jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence in its
entirety, more particularly, in an appeal against the acquittal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Rai Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal
No. 1508 of 2005, has held that in appeal against acquittal, the
Court should be very slow and loath in interfering and unless there
is a serious misreading of the evidence or procedural lapses in the
trial, no interference should be made.
Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Ashok Rai
(supra) reads as:-
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 02:40:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 08:30:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:29353] (4 of 5) [CRLA-485/1993]“8. Several Judgments of this court have been cited on the
principles which should guide the court while dealing with an
appeal against order of acquittal. The law is so well settled that it
is not necessary to refer to those judgments. Suffice it to say that
the appellate court has to be very cautious while reversing an
order of acquittal because order of acquittal strengthens the
presumption of innocence of the accused. If the view taken by the
trial court is are reasonably possible view it should not be
disturbed, because the appellate court feels that some other view
is also possible. A perverse order of acquittal replete with gross
errors of facts and law will have to be set aside to prevent
miscarriage of justice, because just as the court has to give due
weight to the presumption of innocence and see that innocent
person is not sentenced, it is equally the duty of the court to see
that the guilty do not escape punishment. Unless the appellate
court finds the order of acquittal to be clearly unreasonable and is
convinced that there are substantial and compelling reasons to
interfere with it, it should not interfere with it.”
Reference may also be made to a judgment rendered in the
case Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2012 AIR
SCW 2990 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that
only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse,
the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal.
The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further that the trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine
manner where the other view is possible should be avoided,
unless there are good reasons for interference.
This Court does not find any infirmity or error of fact or law
in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 02:40:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 08:30:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:29353] (5 of 5) [CRLA-485/1993]
against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt to seek
interference of this Court.
As an upshot of the forgoing discussion, the present appeal
filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent is
dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23.07.1993 passed by
the learned Judge, Special Court, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity)
Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.27/92(82/91) is upheld in
its entirety.
The record be sent back forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
1-TarunG/-
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 02:40:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 08:30:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
