In this criminal revision, the State challenged the order discharging accused respondents under Section 398 IPC. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's conclusion that the confession was not admissible and no prima facie case existed. The petition was dismissed.
Criminal revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Revision No. 72 / 2017
State of Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order
01/03/2017
This criminal revision petition is filed by the State being aggrieved with the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.8/2016 (06/2016) whereby the trial court has discharged the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Section 398 IPC. The trial court has observed that though the police has apprehended the accusedrespondents and recovered from them a new cylinder, pipe cutter, funner and rod but none of the said recovered articles is deadly weapon. The trial court has further observed that only evidence available against the accused-respondent is to the effect that they have confessed before the police authorities that they were planning to rob ATM Machine in City Sardarsahar. The trial court is
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-72/2017]
of the opinion that the confession before the police authorities is not admissible in evidence. The trial court has concluded that the investigating agency has failed to produce any other evidence to prove prima facie case against the accused-respondents for charging them for the offence punishable under Section 398 IPC.
After going through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality in the same.
Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Gaurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge committed any illegality in discharging the accused for the offence under Section 398 IPC based on the absence of admissible evidence beyond confession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Ramesh
Ramfal
Satyaveer
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
