Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL
Pravindra @ Leela, S/o Mool Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
1. Accused/appellants have preferred these Criminal Appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Khetri, whereby appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 332, 353, 336 R/w 34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced as under:
(ii) For offence under Section 353 IPC:- two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(iii) For offence under Section 336 R/w 34 IPC:- three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three days additional simple imprisonment to each accused appellants.
(iv) For offence under Section 307/34 IPC:- ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, six months a
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious lapses in the prosecution's case can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Convictions for conspiracy and robbery under specific IPC sections were challenged due to unreliable evidence and identified inconsistencies.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a consistent and credible prosecution case, including evidence of motive or enmity, to establish guilt beyond reasonable dou....
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The judgment establishes that mere participation in a crime is not sufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC; there must be evidence of common intention and active participation in the commissio....
The judgment establishes the importance of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and the conduct of the accused in determining guilt in a dacoity case.
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimony and evidence inconsistencies.
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
