Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar @ Pappu S/o Banwarilal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 39/1992 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Chili & Ors.) whereby the accused-respondent, namely, Rakesh Kumar @ Pappu was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 3 02 & 201 IPC and Section 3 /25 (1)(b) of ARMS ACT ; accused-respondents Harichand, Rajesh Kumar @ Chilli and Banwarilal were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 3 02 read with Sections 3 4 , 120-B & 201 IPC, while extending all the accused-respondents the benefit of doubt.
1.2. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused-respondent No.2-Banwarilal and accused-respondent No.4- Harichand have expired, as reflected in the orders dated 22.05.2024 & 27.02.2020, respectively, whereby, the instant appeal to the extent of the said deceased respondents was dismissed, as having abated. Thus, the present appeal is surviving only qua accused-respondents (surviving), namely, Rakesh Kumar @ Pappu, and Rajesh Kumar @
The acquittal of the accused was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view unless the trial court's decision demonstrates illegality or perversity. Evidence must meet the high....
In criminal cases, an appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if it finds a clear error in the trial court's evaluation of evidence, not based on potential alternative views.
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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 upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the accused's guilt.
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.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubts benefit the accused, making acquittal appropriate where evidence is inconsistent or insufficient.
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.
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
