Back
RAJESH SEKHRI
State of Jammu and Kashmir through SHO – Appellant
Versus
Jaswant Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been directed against judgment dated 29.08.2014, delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (Special Judge),[the trial Court, for short] vide which respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 295/447/504/506 RPC.
2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be apt to have an overview of the background facts.
3. On 18.11.2006, a complaint, EXPW-PS came to be lodged by one Phalail Singh, who claims to be ‘Mohatmin” of temple Shivaji Maharaj, Trown, Tehsil Doda. The complainant placed reliance upon Khasra Girdawari of Kharief 2006 to contend that land measuring 02 kanals, 11 marlas, comprising Khasra No. 53 min situate at village Trown belongs to Shivaji Maharaj Temple and he is looking after the Temple and its property. It was inter alia alleged by the complainant that in the afternoon of 16.11.2006, respondents trespassed into the aforesaid land, put some construction material, in furtherance of common criminal intention to damage the temple property and to defile the temple. It was alleged by the complainant, that he dissuaded the respondents/accused from doing so, but he was threatened to b
Criminality under Section 295 RPC does not include insult of religion which is made unintentionally or carelessly or without malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.
Malicious intent is essential for establishing offences under Section 295 RPC; mere acts without such intent do not constitute a violation.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
The plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession of the property was established based on the revocable permission/licence granted by the plaintiff's temple and the defendant's failure to establish ....
Pujaries do not acquire ownership rights over a temple; their role is limited to worship and management.
The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Custom requires specific pleading and proof of continuity, certainty, long usage, reasonableness. Second appeals under Section 100 CPC permit no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity. Fabrica....
In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubts arise, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to their acquittal.
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
