State v. Raj Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the state's leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal. It held that the investigation violated mandatory RPF Rules and Railway Board orders regarding recovery registers and inquiry roles, justifying the benefit of doubt.
What did the court decide?
Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal is dismissed.
What the court decided
$~14
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.L.P. 337/2014 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel for railways with Ms. Madhulita Agarwal, Adv. versus RAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent Through : Attendance slip not given
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 17.11.2016
Vide judgment dated 21st September, 2013 trial court has acquitted the respondent for offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (“the Act”, for short). Aggrieved by the acquittal, petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Act alleging therein that on 6th October, 2004, coaccused Umesh was apprehended by the team of RPF officials at about 17:10 hrs. near Km No. 4/19. RPF and 12 pendrol clips were recovered from his possession. The said clips were railway property and had been stolen or
unlawfully obtained by said Umesh. In his disclosure and confessional statements, Umesh stated that he used to sell the railway property in a shop at Murga Market, Village Wazirpur. He took the RPF officials to the shop of respondent from where 154 pendrol clips were recovered. The railway property was seized and the respondent was arrested. Respondent disclosed that accused Rakesh Kumar was his partner in the scrap shop. Subsequently, Rakesh Kumar was also arrested on 23rd October, 2004. Railway expert examined the recovered articles and gave his report, thereby certifying the same to be railway property, valuing ` 6,000/-.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in acquitting the respondent due to violations of mandatory RPF Rules and Railway Board orders during investigation.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Whether the failure to produce relevant registers and comply with mandatory procedures warrants the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State
- respondent
Raj Kumar
Coram
A.K. Pathak
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court