Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
State – Appellant
Versus
Daria Khan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.67/94 (State vs Daria Khan & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302, 498A, 120B & 201 IPC, while giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. At the outset, Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan for Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned GA cum AAG, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, which reflects that on count of demise of the respondent No.3-Lehra and respondent No.6-Pathan Khan, the instant appeal qua them stood abated on the said date itself. He has also produced before this Court a report dated 18.09.2024 received from the Police Station, Sankra, District Jaisalmer, wherein it has been mentioned that apart from the said accused-respondents i.e., Lehra & Pathan Khan, accused-respondents Anwar Khan, Ibrahim, Dariya Khan & Dole Khan have also already expired. Thus, in light of the same,
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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 acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view unless the trial court's decision demonstrates illegality or perversity. Evidence must meet the high....
The presumption of innocence remains paramount in criminal law, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or possibility of guilt is insufficient for conviction.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof require that the prosecution must establish intent and sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.
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
