Back
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Mahesh S/o Ramcharan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-complainant, aggrieved from judgment dated 30.08.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur wherein learned Sessions Court has acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from charge under Section 147, 323, 323/149 and 447 of IPC and Section 145/147 of Indian Railway Act, 1989.
2. We have considered the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor received from SHO, P.S. Badi, District Dholpur wherein, it has been intimated that respondent No. 5 Mahtab S/o Rafiuddin @ Gafoor has expired. Considering the report, the proceedings against respondent No. 5 Mahtab stand abated and hence same is closed due to abatement.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the complainant has filed FIR for the incident and in his deposition, he has corroborated the incident. He further submits that the incident was further corroborated by other witnesses injured (eye-witness) produced by the prosecution in support of PW-3 complainant. He further submits that the trial Court while considering the evidence of prosecution has failed to consider that the injury report of Mahesh Chand, Mukesh Kumar, Ram Niwas
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless clear illegality or perversity is demonstrated.
An appellate court may not disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the latter's judgment is unreasonable or perverse, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court can only overturn such a judgment if it finds that the trial court's conclusion was unreasonable or unsupported by eviden....
The High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into a conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.
Acquittal judgments require compelling reasons for interference; presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
The conviction based solely on the complainant's testimony, without corroborating evidence, is insufficient to uphold a guilty verdict.
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
