Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Balu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No.87/92, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month's simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, were sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that complainant-Pratap filed a written report before the Police Station, Doongla, District Chittorgarh, alleging therein that on 18.03.1992 at about 9:00 p.m., on the occasion of Holi Festival, while the complainant went to join the gathering for participating in the customary Gair
Inconsistencies in witness statements and doubt regarding the incident can lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially under stringent provisions such as the SC/ST Act.
Inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence cannot be used to convict and sentence a person, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
The necessity of independent and impartial witnesses in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to substantiate claims of public humiliation and intimidation.
The court emphasized the importance of proving guilt beyond doubt, considering inconsistencies in evidence, and the need for cogent reasoning and findings in judgments.
The court applied the principles of sentencing policy and the need for timely treatment of injuries in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant.
At the stage of framing of charges, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, and the impugned order must not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference....
An acquittal should not be disturbed unless compelling reasons exist, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
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
