Dismissed

State v. Prakash

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2017CRLLA/261/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against a trial court conviction. The Court held the appeal was meritless as the State sought to challenge an absence of conviction for a charge that was never framed against the accused. The leave appeal was dismissed as being bereft of merit, and the Law Department was directed to take action.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal filed by the appellant-State is dismissed as being bereft of merit.

State Vs Prakash — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 261 / 2016

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Prakash S/o Taru Singh Rawat, Tatgarh, Distt. Ajmer.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi - PP

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶11

04/04/2017

¶12

This leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases), Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.81/2014, whereby the trial court while convicting the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 366-A IPC read with Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) has sentenced him accordingly.

¶13

This leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State solely on the ground that the trial court has grossly erred in not convicting the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

¶14

I have perused the record of the Sessions Case No.81/2014.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLLA-261/2016]

¶17

From the record, it is clear that the charges have been framed against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 366-A IPC read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and no charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC has been framed by the trial court against the accused respondent.

¶18

When no charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused respondent by the trial court there is no question of convicting him for the said offence.

¶19

It is very strange that this leave to appeal is filed by the appellant-State claiming that the trial court has not convicted and sentenced the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC despite the fact that no charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused respondent.

¶20

It is very sorry state of affairs that this leave to appeal is filed by the appellant-State without taking into consideration the facts of the case.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that though the Public Prosecutor of the trial court has opined that no case for filing of appeal against the impugned judgment is made out because the accused respondent has already been convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the offences, for which the charges have been framed against him. However, the Law Department of State of Rajasthan has decided to file appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶22

It appears that the officers or authorities of the Law

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLLA-261/2016]

¶25

Department of State of Rajasthan, who are responsible for taking decision for filing appeal against the judgment of the trial court, have acted in most irresponsible manner and has instructed the Government Advocate Office to file appeal against the impugned judgment without carefully scrutinising the facts of the case.

¶26

In the above noted circumstances, this leave to appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-State against the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is hereby dismissed as being bereft of any merit.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary of Law Department, Government of Rajasthan for taking necessary action.

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶29

Abhishek Kumar S.No.98

State v. Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Shishupal and Anr.

State Vs Ramesh and Ors.

Chtan Ram Vs State

State Vs Doongar Ram

Smt. Lali Vs State and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs State