HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, BIPIN GUPTA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Nanu S/o Uda Gujar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State assailing the judgment dated 10.01.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.180/87, whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them.
1.1. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced a report dated 06.08.2025, submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, regarding the present status of the accused persons named in the FIR. As per the said report, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused-respondents, namely Uda s/o Bagtadar Gurjar, have passed away. The aforesaid report is taken on record. Accordingly, the present adjudication is being confined to the surviving accused-respondents, namely, Nanu, Bheru, Kajod, Ladu, Gheesa, Sitaram, Ugma, and Rameshwar.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1992.
3. Brief facts of the case, as presented before this Court by Mr.Ramesh Dewasi learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 16.09.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the accused's guilt.
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 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.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
An appellate court may reappraise evidence in acquittal appeals but maintains double presumption of innocence, requiring clear support for findings before altering trial court decisions.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lapses in investigation and reliance on questionable evidence necessitate acquittal.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
(1) Dying declaration – For a statement to be termed dying declaration, circumstances discussed/disclosed therein must have some proximate relation to actual occurrence – If a dying declaration inspi....
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.
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.