Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Rohthash and Others

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2022CRLLA/132/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the Criminal Leave to Appeal filed by the State challenging an acquittal. The Court found the conviction evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies in the injury report and the fact that the alleged offence was compounded via compromise.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Leave to Appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of the accused/respondents is remained in force.

State of Rajasthan Vs Rohthash and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 132/2015

¶3

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rohthash S/o Soram, R/o Siroli Kala, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶7

Roshan, S/o Soram, R/o Siroli Kala, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶8

Bhallon, S/o Shri Ram, R/o Siroli Kala, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶9

Baljeet, S/o Shri Ram, R/o Siroli Kala, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶10

----Accused/Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. Govt. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Shekhawat, through VC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/01/2022

¶15

State has filed this Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Tijara, Alwar.

¶16

It is contended by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondents. Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-2 Sampat who is also an injured witness.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents has opposed the criminal leave to appeal. It is contended that all the witnesses including wife of deceased has turned hostile. It is also

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLLA-132/2015]

¶20

contended that PW-2 Sampat is not a reliable witness as he has alleged that Rohthash, Baljeet and Pappu gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased, whereas there is single injury caused to the deceased and deceased died after two and a half months of the incident.

¶21

We have considered the contentions.

¶22

Both the parties had submitted a compromise before the Court below and offence under Sections 323 & 341 IPC were compounded by the Court below. Evidence of PW-2 Sampat is not reliable as he has levelled allegations against three persons of causing injury on the head of the deceased, whereas deceased has sustained only one injury on the head. As per Sampat, Pappu also gave blow with lathi on head but Pappu has not been charge-sheeted. As per the medical opinion, cause of death is due to abscess which might have been probably caused by the head injury. The evidence of doctor is also not directly linking the injury as cause of death. The deceased sustained a single blow but there is no evidence as to who had caused that injury.

¶23

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the criminal leave to appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

CHANDAN /2

State of Rajasthan v. Rohthash and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Rohthash and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkishore S/O Shri Ramnaresh B/C Kahar (Batam) Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Kumar Bhuranda S/O Shri Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju W/O Hari Chand Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sumer Singh S/O Shri Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandmal @ Chandu S/O Shri Bajiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash @ Akhil S/O Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan