Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ujjawal alias Kalu Kaushik S/o Suresh Kaushik – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
1. The present appeal assails the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara on the file of Sessions Case No. 30/2001, therein and thereby, the respondents-Ujjawal @ Kalu and Mohan Lal were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 323, 324, 120-B of IPC and under Section 302/34, 323, 324/34, 120-B of IPC respectively.
2. The present appeal is at the instance of the State.
3. For the convenience, accused-Ujjawal @ Kalu is referred as A-1 and accused-Mohan Lal is referred as A-2, who are the respondents in the present appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution is that Mohsin Khan (PW-2) and Sandeep Mehta (PW-9) were friends. On 31.03.2001, Sandeep Mehta parked his cycle near the Dairy Booth of Chandra Shekhar Aazad Nagar of Bhilwara. At 7 pm when they came back to the place of parking, they found that the cycle was punctured with nails. The complainant-Mohsin Khan (PW-2) suspected the role of Ujjawal @ Kalu (A-1) and Narayan Gurjar (absconder), who were sitting by the side of the cycle. In this regard, there was an exchange of heated words and a fight broke out. They allegedly assaulted. Meanwhile, S
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the need for corroboration in criminal cases.
The appellate court may reverse an acquittal if it determines the trial court's findings are perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, reaffirming the reliance on direct eyewitness testimony.
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, unreliable recovery of the weapon, and a defective investigation.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
