Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Balu Ram son of Shri Chunni Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajathan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.11/1992, whereby the learned trial court has convicted him for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default ofpayment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of two months.
2. None appears on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter Looking to the fact that the case is very old, in the interest of justice, Ms. Nikita Vaishnav, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.
3. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that the incident in question took place on 18.01.1987 at about 8:30– 8:45 AM near the shop of one Sindhi, situated close to the house of the injure
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served, acknowledging the appellant's age and absence of prior offenses.
The court affirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence based on mitigating factors, emphasizing the need for reformative justice in sentencing after extensive delay in proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the medical report to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence pu....
The conviction for assault under Section 324 IPC was upheld due to sufficient evidence, while acquittal of others was justified as evidence showed no intent to kill.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and medical evidence raise doubts on intent and culpability under Section 302 IPC.
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was modified to Section 323 IPC due to insufficient evidence of grievous harm, emphasizing the need for credible witness testimony and the burden of proof on the ....
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the offenses punishable under sections 341 and 324 of the IPC based on witness testimonies and the nature of ....
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
