Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
Bahadur Singh S/o Guruvachan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appreciation of evidence and witness testimony (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court's evaluation of prosecution evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. final adjudication of the revision petition (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has assailed the judgment dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 14/2005 (3/2005), whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as emerging from the record, is that on 11.06.2004, an unfortunate incident allegedly took place near village Joyla wherein a bus belonging to Khalsa Motors, plying on the Falna–Jalore route, after colliding with a jeep, was allegedly vandalized and set ablaze by a mob gathered at the place of occurrence. On the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant Bahadur Singh before the SHO, Police Station Shivganj, a criminal case for the offence under Section 436 IPC came to be regi
Revisional jurisdiction against an acquittal is limited; a court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the impugned judgment is found to be manif....
Acquittal upheld based on insufficient evidence; revision jurisdiction cannot convert acquittal to conviction without clear errors.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of prompt FIR registration and key witnesses can impact the case's outcome.
Acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless compelling reasons exist, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
Test identification parade not mandatory if witnesses identify accused at scene and trial; circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction under IPC 435/34.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn such judgments.
An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court can only overturn such a judgment if it finds that the trial court's conclusion was unreasonable or unsupported by eviden....
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Acquittal judgments require compelling reasons for interference; presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal.
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
