MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Nainu W/o Hemaramji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29.09.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali, in Sessions Case No.36/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 341, 354 IPC and Sections 3(i) (xi), 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.10.2002, complainant Nainu submitted a report at Police Station Bali to the effect that accused-respondent No.2 entered her house and caused injuries by lathi and also abused her using caste oriented words. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-respondent No.2 in the Court concerned.
3. The learned Special Court, SC/ST Act framed charge against the accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused-respondent No.2, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined. Thereafter, statement of the
'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to lack of compelling evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Interference in acquittal requires compelling reasons; the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
The principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons, and the presumption of innocence is reinforced by such acquittal.
Courts will only interfere with a judgment of acquittal in compelling circumstances, ensuring the presumption of innocence is maintained.
Acquittals should not be overturned unless compelling reasons are shown; the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.
Acquittal judgments require compelling reasons for interference; presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
The court emphasized that acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless they are palpably erroneous or contrary to evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn such judgments.
Acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless compelling reasons exist, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
An appellate court may only interfere with a judgment of acquittal when there are compelling reasons, and the presumption of innocence remains fortified by acquittal.
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.