PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993.
3. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.1993 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No. 10/91, whereby the present accused-appellants, have been convicted and sentence is as follows:
| Offence under Section(s) | Sentence(s) | Fine(s) |
| 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs 100/-, in default to undergo further 2 months of rigorous imprisonment. |
However, vide the impugned judgment, the remaining eight accused persons, were acquitted of the charges against them.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted
Majjal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 798]
Rama v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 4 SCC 571: 2002 SCC (Cri) 829]
Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat reported in 2023 INSC 829
The principle of parity in criminal law mandates that co-accused with similar evidence should receive consistent verdicts, preventing arbitrary distinctions in convictions.
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction.
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insuffic....
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony, even with minor inconsistencies, can substantiate a conviction for murder when corroborated by other evidence.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction must be based on clear and convincing evidence, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof require that the prosecution must establish intent and sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The judgment reinforces that an acquittal can only be overturned if the appellate court finds a clear error in the trial court's assessment of evidence.
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
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.