Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


JAGDISH CHANDRA & ANR. v STATE - CRLR Case No. 700 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2230 (26 April 2007)


Jagdish Chandra & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.700/2006.

(Jagdish Chandra & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan) 26th April, 2007


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________

Mr. K.L. Jasmatiya for the petitioner.

Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P.


By this petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur dated 30.01.2006, whereby while giving the finding of guilt the trial Court has granted benefit of probation to the petitioners and the same judgment was challenged by way of filing appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was transferred to Addl.

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur and vide judgment dated 17.06.2006 the learned appellate Court has also upheld the judgment passed by the trial Court.

In this petition, the petitioners have contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the finding of the trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 448, 147, 323 and 149, I.P.C. and consequent


Jagdish Chandra & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan conviction of the petitioners is totally erroneous and, in fact, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have perused the impugned judgments.

As per allegation of the prosecution, Smt. Mathura Devi lodged FIR with police station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur on 25.11.2000 that she is living with her family in Masuria, behind

Kumharon-ki-Bagechi for last 20-25 years. Her neighbourers

Jagdish Chandra, Anil, Vimla, Anita and Ramadevi entered into her plot by breaking the wall of their house and gave them beating. It was further alleged that the assailants also destroyed the domestic material lying in the house. After investigation, challan was filed and the prosecution led evidence before the trial Court in support of its case. The petitioner is only making prayer that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and there is no material on record by which it can be said that any offence is made out against the petitioner.

In the present case, petitioners Jagdish Chandra and Anil

Kumar preferred appeal and thereafter the present revision petition against the judgment of the trial Court. The other co- accused who were given benefit of probation have not preferred any appeal against the verdict of the trial Court. Having carefully gone through the impugned judgments passed by the


Jagdish Chandra & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan trial Court as well as appellate Court, I do not find any good ground for interference. On the other hand, in the revisionary exercise of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to examine the matter with re-appreciation of the entire evidence to draw forth a conclusion afresh on the basis of the material on record. No illegality has been pointed out in the finding arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. In the circumstances, there is no force in this revision petition.

The revision petition is dismissed.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.


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


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 |

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