HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Kiran Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional District & Session Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.73/2011 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and convicted him for offence under Sections 341 , 323 IPC while extending the benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders At.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 19.07.2011, complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the court of MJM, Bikaner to the effect that on 11.07.2011, the accused-respondent No.2 assaulted her and her son while using caste oriented language. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3). Upon which, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC and Section 3(1) (x
The prosecution failed to prove the charges under the SC/ST Act, justifying the acquittal, while the trial court's decision to grant probation for IPC convictions was upheld.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons, and the presumption of innocence is reinforced by such acquittal.
The court upheld the acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to overturn such judgments.
An acquittal should not be disturbed unless compelling reasons exist, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The necessity of independent and impartial witnesses in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to substantiate claims of public humiliation and intimidation.
The court can reduce a sentence to the time already served when considering prolonged custody and mental trauma of the accused while maintaining the conviction.
An acquittal under the SC/ST Act can only be overturned if the appellate court finds compelling reasons, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of substantial evidence.
Interference in acquittal requires compelling reasons; the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to lack of compelling evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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.