Back
FARJAND ALI
Bhagwat Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By the Court:—
Farjand Ali, J.—These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants Bhagwat Singh, Pushpendra Singh (since died), Nenu Singh, Ram Sigh, Manmohan Singh and Chhotu Singh under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.53/2001 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.
2. As both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, thus, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. During the course of appeal, appellant No.2 Pushpendra Singh (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.863/2001) passed away on 18.09.2017. An application came to be preferred on behalf of the legal representatives of Pushpendra Singh, namely Smt. Renu, Ms. Sapna and Mr. Yash, his wife, daughter and son respectively, for their impleadment as appellants and to allow them to
(1) Legal representatives of deceased appellant have right to seek acquittal and continue appeal against conviction of deceased appellant so as to remove stigma of conviction of their deceased family....
The absence of a Test Identification Parade, along with inadequacies in prosecution evidence, poses a reasonable doubt on the conviction under Section 395 IPC.
For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that is consistent solely with the guilt of the accused; otherwise, the accused are entitled to acquittal.
The judgment establishes the requirement for reliable and conclusive circumstantial evidence to prove guilt, emphasizing the burden of proof and the conditions necessary for the applicability of Sect....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the conviction if the overall evidence is credible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
