This order clarifies that where there is a complete lack of prosecution evidence, a clean acquittal is mandatory. It modifies an order granting benefit of doubt to a clean acquittal, allowing the plea.
The impugned judgment was modified to grant clean acquittal to the petitioner instead of acquittal on benefit of doubt.
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/RJJP/007284]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 870/2023
Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Post Goth, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333516.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar, Adv. for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
19/04/2023
[2023/RJJP/007284]
[CRLMP-870/2023]
(2 of 2)
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Ashwani/-36
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner was entitled to clean acquittal instead of acquittal on benefit of doubt.
Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable when it recorded acquittal on benefit of doubt instead of clean acquittal.
Virendra Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
