Dismissed

Pramod Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2017CRLA/1521/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal appeal involving impersonation by enforcing appearance conditions. The court ruled that the trial court correctly framed charges based on a prima facie view rather than single witness statements, while exempting the appellant from physical presence subject to filing an undertaking to appear at critical stages.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant exempted from personal appearance subject to filing an undertaking to appear at framing of charges, recording of section 313 statement to deliver judgment.

Pramod Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAHFUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1521 / 2017

Pramod Sharma

Versus

State Of Raj And Anr

T For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer sharmii* For Respondent@) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP

¶7

HON'B'LE MR. JUSTICE KANMIAb3If SINGW AHLUWALEA Order

¶8

ss/ea/aols

¶9

Present appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 22.04.2017 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jhalawar, whereby the said +r i court had charged the appellant for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3-I'fS) and 3-l(Z) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for th'e appellant has submitted that while framing the charges the trial court has not taken into consideration the statement of the witness recorded under Section

¶11

The arguments raised by counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The court while framing charges has to formulate prima facie view, taking into consideration the evidence gathered by the investigating agency and not only the statement of one or two witnesses.

¶12

¶13

At this juncture, cpunsel for the appellant has .r submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 07.06.2014 and appellant is victim of false implication. Whether appellant has been falsely implicated or not shall be determined during the course of the trial. However, taking this arguments into consideration, that occurrence has taken place more than 3 years ago and false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out, personal appearance of the'appellant before the court below is exempted subjkct to furnishing an undefta&ing containing I' ." following' conditions:-

¶14

¶15

(a) That the appellant within one month from today shall file undertaking before the tkia'r court. The appellant in the undertaking shall specifically state that he :shall remain present before the trial court at the time of framiqg of charges, recording Lt of statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at time of the delivery of the judgment.

¶16

(b) The appellant in the undertaking shall also specifically state $ that the proceedings carr.ied in. presence of his counsel but in absence of the appellant shall be binding u'pon him. "-'. & ' 5

¶17

In view of above, present appeal is disposed of.

¶18

It is further ordered that the trial court shall be empowered to add any or other conditions in the undertaking to be filed by the appellant.

¶19

(KAN WALJIB SINGH AHLUWAL1A)J.

Pramod Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divik Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Siddharth Mehriya Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Siddharth Mehriya Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dhanpal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Dhan Pal@ Babu Lal @ Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P