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) 1777

AMITAVA ROY
Deuram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:L.D. Khatri, Advocate.
For the Party: A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard Mr.L.D.Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R.Nikub, learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The facts in brief necessary to be noted are that on 14.9.1997 at about 6.30 AM, one Himmat Singh submitted a written report before the Police Station, Jaisalmer, alleging that while his sister in law alongwith her children was sleeping in the house in the previous night at about 1.30 AM, he heard hue and cry and having reached the place of occurrence, apprehended the petitioner thereat. On necessary enquiries, his sister in law Khetu Kanwar accused the petitioner of having caught her hand while she was sleeping.

3. On the report, the police submitted a charge-sheet for the offences u/ss.457 and 354 IPC. The petitioner denied the charges for which the trial followed. At the trial, the prosecutrix and other witnesses were examined. The petitioner in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charge. He further examined two witnesses in defence.

4. At the conclusion of the trial, the court below though convicted him for both the offences, granted him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Act").









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