Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE versus MOOLA RAM

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE v MOOLA RAM - CRLLA Case No. 200 of 2005 [2006] RD-RJ 1382 (2 June 2006)

D.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.200/2005

State of Rajasthan vs. Moola Ram

DATE OF ORDER:02.06.2006

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA

Mr.Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor

BY THE COURT(PER HON'BLE MR.MATHUR J.)

We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Case & Additional Sessions Judge, Merta dated 6.5.2005 acquitting the accused respondent of offence under

Section 302 read with 120-B I.P.C.

The respondent Moola Ram was tried for the charge of murder of one Uda Ram. It is alleged that deceased Uda Ram and his brother Purkha Ram lived in a Dhani to take care of the cattle. On 5th March, 2005 Madhu Ram lodged the First

Information Report stating that in the morning of 5th May, 2004 his brother Uda Ram was found dead. There were injuries on his body. On inquiry from Purkha Ram, it revealed that in the night some persons entered in the Dhani and killed Uda Ram. It was also disclosed that Purkha Ram is a mentally retarded person.

During the trial prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced certain document. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him.

He also stated that his relation with Uda Ram was extremely cordial. He also stated that it was the complainant Likhma Ram and Madharam, who were interested to grab the entire land of the family. They did not even allow the marriage of Purkha Ram and Uda Ram. They used to torture deceased Uda Ram and

Purkha Ram. He has been falsely implicated at the instance of

Madha Ram and Likhma Ram. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, the trial court found that there is neither any ocular evidence nor circumstantial evidence to connect the accused respondent with the alleged crime.

Having gone through the entire judgment, we find no evidence worth the name to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. No case is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

The application for grant of leave to appeal stands rejected.

(MANAK MOHTA) J. (N.N.MATHUR) J.

BKS/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.