Dismissed

Bijendra Kumar v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2017CRLLA/78/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a belated application for leave to appeal against an acquittal order. After condoning the delay under the Limitation Act, the court considered the evidence and the magistrate's application of the volenti non fit injuria principle and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Bijendra Kumar Vs State and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH 'COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 78 / 2017

¶3

Bijendra Kumar S/o Gugan Ram, R/o Thirpali Badi, Tehsil-rajgarh, District-churu.

¶4

Versus

¶5

I.. The State of Rajasthan

¶6

2. Mahipal S/o Shri Gopal Ram, R/o Thirpali Badi, Tehsil-rajgarh, District-churu.

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr. 1.D.Singh Bhati

¶8

For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Or.der

18/07/2017

Heard.

The instant application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 8.12.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh dismissing appeal as not pressed against the judgment dated 9.2.20.15 passed by the learned Judicial Mgistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 287 and 338 IPC and is delayed by 640 days.

¶14

The delay occasioned in the filing application for leave to appeal has been properly explained in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thus I have examined the matter on merits.

¶15

The applicant complainant filed a complaint against Mahipal

¶16

hith the allegation that he had been engaged with a tractor and thrasher to reap the harvested crop in the field of the applicant complaina.nt. During this process Mahipal left the thrasher running and went to sleep instead of supervising the w.ork and resultantly the co'mplainant who was feeding Gwar crop in the thrasher met with an accident and his hand had to amputed because of being crushed in the thrasher. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the 1.0. came to the conclusion that the applicant himself acted negligently and operated the thrasher without the consent and knowledge of Mahipal. Leatned trial court upon conducting trial found conclusion of the police to be correct and applying the principle of volenti non fit injuria' proceeded to acquit the respondent Mahipal.

¶17

After appreciating the arguments advanced by Mr. Bhati and after going through the impugned judgment I am also of the view that the judgment of .acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent Mahipal from the charge does not suffer from. any error or illegality so as to warrant any interference.

¶18

Consequently, application for leave to appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶19

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

Bijendra Kumar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra Kumar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdev Vs State and Anr.

Parmeshwar Lal Vs State and Ors.

Bhupendra Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Mahadev Ram Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Rajendra

Kundan Singh and Anr. Vs State and Anr.