Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Takhat Singh, S/o. Hamer Singh (Since Dead) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detailed account of incident and judicial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenging the conviction based on evidence inconsistencies. (Para 3) |
| 3. court analysis of evidence and application of legal principles. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conclusion with acquittal of appellant lal singh. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.07.1995, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.4/1993 (190/1992), whereby the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
| Name of the accused | Offence for which convicted | Substantive sentence | Fine and default sentence |
| Takhat Singh | Section 307 IPC | 6 years RI | Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 6 months SI |
| Section 324 IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 3 months SI | |
| Lal Singh | Section 307/34 IPC | 6 years RI | Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 6 months SI |
| Section 324/34 IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo 3 months SI |
All substantive sentences
For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of common intention and active participation; mere presence is insufficient.
Common intention is a matter of inference from attending circumstances and role of accused in commission of offence.
The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, and common intention among co-accused can be inferred from their conduct during the commission of the crime.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing common intention and individual participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the need for reliable evidence to prove the a....
The court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 324/34 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC, emphasizing absence of deadly weapon use and mitigating circumstances.
Violation of procedural rules in SC & ST Act investigations vitiates trial outcomes; the conviction under lesser charges can be maintained despite initial assault intensity.
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
