SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1245

ATUL KUMAR JAIN
Shaitana Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:D.L.R. Vyas, Advocate.
For the State: Panney Singh, P.P.

JUDGMENT

1. - In this criminal revision petition, final arguments have been heard by me at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

2. In Sessions Case No. 4/2013 on 11.1.2013, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jodhpur has framed the charges under Sections 376, 379 and 323 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").

3. I have heard both the parties. I have perused the statement of the prosecutrix Pappu Devi recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. I have also perused her statement which was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Some of the lines of her statement are as follows:-

"'kSrkuk jke esjs ?kj gh jgrk jkr dks esjs ikl gh lksrk o esjs lkFk esjh lgefr ls lEHkksx djrk Fkk 'kSrkuk jke o esjs lgokl ls nks cPps iSnk gq, tks thfor gS o esjs ikl jgrs gS ftudk uke Lo:i mez 3 lky txnh'k mez 2 lky gS djhc 5&6 lky rd eSa o 'kSrkuk jke nksuksa ifr iRuh ds :i esa jgs 'kSrkukjke 'kknh 'kqnk ugha Fkk o eq>s ges'kk dgrk fd eSa rq>s ftUnxh Hkj iRuh ds :i esa j[kwaxk------A

--------vkSj 'kSrkukjke us esjs ls voS/k lEcU/k cuk fn;s eSa o 'kSrkujke ifr iRuh dh rjg jgus yxs esjk ifr eq>s NksM+dj pyk x;k FkkA 'kSrkujke o esjs






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top