Petitioner challenged the acquittal of the accused in a Sessions case involving offences under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court found the trial court's findings on contradictory and unreliable prosecution testimony were not perverse and dismissed the revision petition.
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-JD:21962]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 399/2003
Rajudevi W/o Jeevanram, resident of Torada, PS Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
08/05/2024
Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.1.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta passed in Sessions Case No.47/2001 whereby the accused respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 354 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(xi) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:21962]
[CRLR-399/2003]
(2 of 2)
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2003, this Court finds that learned trial court after due consideration of the statements of various witnesses produced before it, has recorded a finding that there are a lot of contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has also recorded a finding that no medical report has been placed on record to support the allegations levelled against the accused respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The learned trial court has also found that all the witnesses have narrated an exaggerated version of the alleged incident which makes their testimony unreliable.
This Court after going through the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse and the order of acquittal has been passed after due analysis of the statements of various witnesses examined before it.
The judgment impugned thus does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting substitution of the findings recorded by the learned trial court by this Court.
Thus, the present criminal revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Record of the case be sent back.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
7-TarunGoyal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 341, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 3(1)(xi), (x) SC/ST (PoA) Act was perverse or otherwise open to challenge in revision.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajudevi
State of Rajasthan
Bal Singh S/o Poos Singh @ Phool Singh
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
