Dismissed

Jangir Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2020CRLLA/9/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the condonation of delay for filing a criminal leave to appeal. It dismissed the appeal against an acquittal of police personnel for hurt and insult to modesty, holding that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal leave to appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal by the learned appellate court is not interfered with.

Jangir Singh Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 9/2020

¶4

Jangir Singh S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Raisikh, R/o Konio, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State, Through P.p.

¶8

Anand Swami S/o Narsing Das Swami, Presently Sub Inspector Police Station Raisinghnagar.

¶9

Rajpal, Presently Asi, P.s. Jawaharnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶10

Hanuman, Presently Head Constable P.s. Taranagar, Dist. Churu.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

15/01/2020

¶16

The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the cr. leave to appeal.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the cr. leave to appeal is condoned.

¶18

The matter is heard on merit today itself.

¶19

The present leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the order/judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed by learned Session Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.133/2018 (09/2016) whereby learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the accused-respondents while

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLLA-9/2020]

¶22

setting aside the order and judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriganganagar and acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under Sections 323, 504 IPC.

¶23

Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court while convicting the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offences has assigned cogent reasons but the learned appellate court without assigning any cogent reason acquitted the accusedrespondents. Counsel further submits that the accusedrespondents entered the house of the appellant and gave beating to the appellant but the learned appellate court held that the injuries caused to the appellant are not grievous in nature and acquitted the accused-respondents. The findings of the learned appellate court is per se illegal and not justified and thus the same deserve to be set aside.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶25

The trial court convicted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 323, 504 IPC but the learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents from the said offences. The learned appellate court has specifically observed that the appellant Jangir Singh filed a complaint before the Court on 04.08.1999 mentioning that the accused-respondents came to his house and gave beating and thereafter they took the appellant to the Police Station as the accused-respondents are police personnel and at the Police Station they also gave beating to the appellant. The appellant filed this complaint on 04.08.1999 whereas the occurrence took place on 20.07.1999. The appellant failed to

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLLA-9/2020]

¶28

explain the delay of 15 days in submitting the complaint. On perusal of the injury report of the appellant also, it is apparent that except injury No.1, other injuries are only relating to pain in his body. The appellant filed an application in which proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused-respondents. Later on after 15 days of the incident, the appellant filed a complaint before the Court without explaining the delay.

¶29

In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the appellate Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the appellate Court. The judgment passed by the appellate court is perfectly according to the law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Harayana and Ors. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 10 Page 136 has categorically observed that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below."

¶30

In the above facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences under Section 323 & 504 IPC. There is no illegality and perversity in the order impugned passed by the learned appellate court.

¶31

Hence, the criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶32

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶33

7-Ms/-

Jangir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Singh @ Rewant Singh Vs State

Lal Ji Vs State

Punamchand Vs Police-State

Narayan Lal Vs Roshan Lal

Gurnam Singh Vs State

Bhanwar Singh Vs State