Rajasthan HC Upholds Acquittal in Attempted Rape Case, Citing Limited Appellate Scope

The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the principle of judicial restraint in appeals against acquittal, ruling that a trial court's finding of innocence cannot be disturbed unless it is shown to be clearly unreasonable or perverse. The decision underscores that the presumption of innocence is bolstered by an acquittal, placing a heavy burden on the State to demonstrate substantial and compelling reasons for interference.

Justice Kuldeep Mathur presided over the appeal, which challenged a three-decade-old verdict from the Special Court, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act Cases, Merta. The Court heard the arguments of the Public Prosecutor representing the State of Rajasthan in a case involving alleged sexual assault and trespass.

Appellate Interference Limited in Absence of Perversity

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused wilfully trespassed with the specific motive to commit rape. The Court emphasized that in its appellate jurisdiction, it cannot simply re-appreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion if the trial court's view is reasonably possible.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 a reasonably possible view it should not be disturbed, because the appellate court feels that some other view is also possible."

Regarding the scope of interference, the Court noted that a perverse order replete with gross errors of facts and law must be set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice; however, it should not interfere in a routine manner. The Court held that unless there is a serious misreading of evidence or procedural lapses, the trial court's findings must be upheld.

The Court has the following directions:

"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."

Background:

The dispute originated from a report filed on August 15, 1991, by the father-in-law of the prosecutrix at the Gotan Police Station. It was alleged that while the woman was guarding crops in an agricultural field, the respondent trespassed, assaulted her, and attempted to commit rape. The prosecution claimed the accused fled after two other women reached the spot. Consequently, a case was registered under Sections 447, 323, and 376 read with 511 of the IPC and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act.

The Trial Court, after examining twelve prosecution witnesses and considering the defense evidence, concluded that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent on July 23, 1993. The State challenged this acquittal, arguing through the Public Prosecutor that the gravity of the offense and the oral testimony of the complainant warranted a conviction. However, the High Court relied on the principles laid down in Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P. ( "2012 AIR SCW 2990": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 270) to maintain the acquittal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's reasoning.

Key Takeaways:

Strengthening the Presumption of Innocence

An acquittal by a trial court reinforces the constitutional presumption of innocence, making it harder for appellate courts to reverse the decision without finding clear perversity.

Double View Rule

If two views are possible from the same set of evidence, the appellate court must defer to the view that favors the acquittal of the accused.

Requirement of Compelling Reasons

State appeals against acquittal require a high threshold of proof, specifically showing serious misreading of evidence or gross procedural errors rather than mere disagreement with the factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi:

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court shall not interfere with the trial court's decision unless it is found to be clearly unreasonable, perverse, or based on a serious misreading of evidence, as the order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 485/1993
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JD:29353
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs. Khinya Ram
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP.
For the Respondent(s): None

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 90