Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Narendra S/o Rakhilalji Vaid – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal appeal and acquittal (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of the case and prosecution's narrative (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by the prosecution (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. defense arguments and counterpoints (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. court's observations on evidence and credibility (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. conclusion and sentencing (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–State under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 12.07.2001 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 92/2001, whereby the accused–respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 31.10.1999, complainant Narendra Kumar Vaid (PW-10) submitted a Verbal report at Police Station Bhinder, stating that his brother, Vishnu Kumar, had gone on a bicycle to wash his hands and mouth, and when he did not return, the complainant proceeded towards Mina Darwaja to search for him. From there, along with Prakash (PW-05), whe
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.
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 must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
The conviction under Section 323 IPC was overturned due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the need for corroboration in criminal cases.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
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
