Back
FARJAND ALI
Mangi Lal Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal, appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the order impugned dated 07.02.2019’ passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal FR No. 188/2017 whereby the protest petition filed by the appellant was rejected and accepted the final report filed by the police official concerned.
2. Brief facts of the case as per appellant are that on 04.05.2017, when he reached to Patta campaign and inquired regarding Patta for construction of his house, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 started abusing him indicating his caste and started beating him; when Nand Lal, Raghuveer Singh and Jaskaran Singh intervened, they were also beaten by the respondents. The respondents No. 2 to 5 threatened the appellant to kill him if he ever visited the Panchayat. As per him, the above incident was happened due to - previous animosity between them as previously the appellant had lodged a complaint against the respondents No. 2 and 3 disclosing various financial scandals committed by them. In the garb of this, respondents No. 2 to 5 made an assault over the appellant when he proc
The court upheld the final report by police stating no case was made out against the respondents, emphasizing the necessity of thorough investigation and detailed reasoning in judicial decisions.
The trial court erred in taking cognizance against the appellants due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness statements.
The court's decision on taking cognizance of the offence was based on the report from the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the absence of further evidence.
The main legal point established is that the court will uphold the acceptance of a Final Report and rejection of a protest petition if no prima facie case is made out against the accused based on tho....
The necessity for the trial court to apply a reasoned speaking order and show reasonable belief before putting the accused for trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
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 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 upheld the rejection of the complaint based on the thorough investigation and valid grounds presented by the police, which led to the conclusion that the allegations were false.
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
