Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. By way of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment dated 28.06.1993 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.16/1991 (State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman Singh & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein have been acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/34, 323/149 & 447 IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.
3. At the outset, attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, wherein it was recorded on the basis of a death certificate so produced, that accused-respondent Mohan Singh had passed away on 09.02.2018, and thus, vide the said order, the instant appeal qua the said accused-respondent Mohan Singh stood abated and dismissed as such. In this view of the matter, the present appeal is surviving only qua accused-respondents (surviving), namely, Hanuman Singh, Mangilal @ Mangoo Singh, Bajrang Singh, Takhat Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Tej
The right of private defense is justified when imminent danger is present, and the response must be proportionate to the threat.
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 appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.
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 acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The judgment establishes that an appellate court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court misreads or omits material evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
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
