The High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal, holding the petition barred by limitation due to unexplained delay. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court's decision, thus no scope for interference.
Leave petition dismissed with no interference in the order of acquittal.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:20671]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 111/2020
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Appellant
Versus
Rasid@chochu S/o Surajmal, R/o Mirzapur, Police Station Kishangarh Bass, Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order
06/07/2023
The present leave to appeal is aggrieved from order dated 03.04.2019 in Sessions Case No. 24/2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby respondentsaccused were acquitted from charge under Sections 4/8 and 3/8(i) of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (‘the Act’).
The present appeal is barred by 236 days in filing the appeal. To substantiate the reasons of delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.
Considered the same.
No specific explanation was offered for delay between 18.04.2019 to 18.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 to 28.01.2020, therefore, this application for condonation of delay on bereft of merit and same is, therefore, dismissed.
[CRLLA-111/2020]
[2023:RJ-JP:20671]
(2 of 3)
Instant leave is preferred aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 03.04.2019. A total number of 9 witnesses and 14 documents were produced by the prosecution.
The charge-sheet was filed against Rashid @ Chochu and Niyaz Mohd. but during pendency of Sessions Case due to death of Niyaz Mohd., the proceedings were abated against him. Learned Trial Court has framed charge under section 4/8(ii) & 3/8(i) the Act, against respondent.
Learned Trial Court in the observation found that there was serious discrepancy in examination of recovered articles including uncooked meat in the statement of PW-1 Satyaveer Singh, PW-3 RajKrishna, PW-5 Narendra Kumar, PW-9 Subhash Chand and PW2 Dr. Shubhram and PW-8 Hawasingh. Learned Trial Court on the basis of aforesaid evidence observed that policemen in their deposition stated that the recovered articles including meat was examined in Veterinary Hospital but PW-2 Dr. Shubhram and PW-8 Hawasingh stated that aforesaid articles including meat were examined at Police Outpost Tijara. Further, learned Trial Court did not found connection of respondent-accused with recovered articles including meet as described in Ex.-P/1. Learned Trial Court on the basis of discrepancy and material contradiction in recovery and also in the deposition of witnesses recorded order of acquittal. Aforesaid material contradictions and discrepancy in recovery is still on record.
Having considered the entire material on record including deposition of statement as referred by learned Public Prosecutor, I am of considered view that learned Trial Court has not committed
[CRLLA-111/2020]
[2023:RJ-JP:20671]
(3 of 3)
any illegality in arriving at a conclusion of acquittal, therefore, there were no perversity or illegality. Hence, no scope of interference is made out by this Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351 , have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.
In view of aforesaid, in absence of perversity and illegality in the order of learned Trial Court, the present leave to appeal is devoid of merit, hence, dismissed.
Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PKS/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present leave petition is barred by limitation despite application for condonation of delay.
Whether the order of acquittal by the Trail Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference.
Whether the scope of this Court to review evidence on acquittal extends to facts where the Trial Court found serious discrepancies and contradictions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Atley v. State Of Uttar PradeshReferred¶27
Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807 · Who else cites this
Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of RajasthanReferred¶27
Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715 · Who else cites this
M. G. Agarwal v. State Of MaharashtraReferred¶27
M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200 · Who else cites this
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶27
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of GujaratReferred¶27
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶27
Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 · Who else cites this
Nepal Singh v. State of HaryanaReferred¶27
Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351 · Who else cites this
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
Rasid@chochu S/o Surajmal
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
