The Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of accused persons was dismissed. The High Court held that since the accused were not named in the FIR or statutory statements and no Test Identification Parade was conducted, the trial court correctly acquitted them.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:45892-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 76/2024
Puniram Son Of Laduram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Ladpura Ki Dhani, Tan Karanpura, Police Station Lawan, District Dausa (Rajasthan)
----Complainant/Appellant
Versus
----Accused Non-Petitioners
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Addl. GA Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. GA Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. GA Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. GA Mr. Kshitiz Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Choudhary,Adv.for Mr. Asgar Khan, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment
06/11/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:45892-DB]
[CRLAD-76/2024]
complainant/appellant that accused non-petitioners No.2 to 4 were also with the assailants and should have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
CHANDAN /93
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of accused in the appeal for alleged common intention under Section 149 IPC is sustainable?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Puniram
State of Rajasthan
Shailendra Kumar @ Allu
Mukhraj
Radha Mohan
Pankaj Bhandari
Shubha Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
