Dismissed

Juhuruddin v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2018CRLR/114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of a prosecution application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused named in the FIR and during trial. The Court upheld the trial court's decision that evidence did not support arson by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissing the prosecution's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Juhuruddin Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 114/2016.

¶4

Juhuruddin S/o Mauj Khan B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Singar, PS Punhana, District Noonh Mewat, Haryana.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

Hajra W/o Ishaq B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Luhesar, PS Kaman, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶8

Ishaq S/o Kullu B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Luhesar, PS Kaman, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶9

Subani S/o Yadoo B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Luhesar, PS Kaman, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶10

Yadoo S/o Kullu B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Luhesar, PS Kaman, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶11

Kayum S/o Ishaq B/c Mev Fakir, R/o Vill. Luhesar, PS Kaman, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶12

Rehman S/o Bhore Khan B/c Mev, R/o Vill. Singar, PS Punhana, District Noonh Mewat, Haryana.

¶13

For Petitioner(s)

¶14

For State

¶15

: Shri Hemendra Goyal

¶16

: Shri V.S. Godara, P.P.

¶17

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

19/1/2018

¶20

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.12.2015, whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for summoning respondents No. 2 to 7 as additional accused was dismissed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No. 2 to 7 are specifically named in the FIR as well as they have been named by the witnesses examined

¶22

during trial.

¶23

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has taken into consideration the fact that admittedly deceased had died on account of burn injuries. However, there was no evidence on record that the deceased had been set on fire by respondents No. 2 to 7. Rather, as per the statement of the deceased herself, recorded by police officials, she had stated that she was preparing tea on 22.5.2012. She used to have fits and suddenly suffered a fit and fell on the stove and suffered burn injuries. On an alarm raised by the deceased, her minor daughter reached the spot. Respondents No. 2 to 7 were found innocent during investigation and challan was presented only against husband of the deceased.

¶24

The reasons given by the Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., are sound reasons and call for no interference.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

(SABINA)J.

¶27

Mrg./34

Juhuruddin v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juhuruddin v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Kana @ Kana Ram Vs State

Bhanwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Gokul Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ramesingh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajeev Modi Vs Union of India

Goverdhan @ Gorkhiya and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.