Mohammed Noor son of Suleman – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
1. Since both – criminal revision petition and appeal arise out of the common judgment dated 20.01.1984 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi (Raj.) [for short ‘the trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 74/1983, hence same are being heard and decided by this common judgment together.
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20/1984:
2. In all twelve accused persons namely; Bhanwar Lal, Surajmal, Mohan, Hari Prasad, Heera Lal, Devi Lal, Prabhu, Raju @ Rajendra, Pokhar, Suraj Mal, Brij Mohan and Soji alias Shivji faced trial for the charges under sections 302/34, 307/34, 147, 148, 149 and 452 IPC. After trial, the trial Court convicted the accused appellants Bhanwar Lal, Suraj Mal and Soji @ Shivji Lal as under:-
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of Payment of Fine |
| 304 Part-II read with section 149 IPC | Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment | 500/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
| 147 IPC | Six months Simple Imprisonment | 100/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
| 452 IPC | Eighteen Months Rigorous Imprisonment | 20 | |
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Point of Law : Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that me....
The court established that a single reliable eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction, and that the trial court must not disregard credible evidence based on irrelevant considerations or minor dis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.