Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Lala Ram – 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) IPC has been preferred against the order dated 30.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months simple imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that complainant-Gordhan Ram filed a complaint before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in relation to an incident alleged to have been occurred on 13.09.1990 at about 6:00 p.m., narrating therein that while the complainant was taking water from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused, the accused- appellant hurled caste based abuses against the compl
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.
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.
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 necessity of independent and impartial witnesses in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to substantiate claims of public humiliation and intimidation.
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....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges under the SC/ST Act, justifying the acquittal, while the trial court's decision to grant probation for IPC convictions was upheld.
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
