Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UGMA RAM versus MUKESH & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UGMA RAM v MUKESH & ANR - CRLR Case No. 480 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3004 (29 May 2007)

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition NO.480/2007

(Ugma Ram Vs. Mukesh & Ors.)

Date of order : 29.5.2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor.

By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by learned Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities Act) Cases, Merta whereby the learned trial court while deciding the matter gave finding that offence under Section 323

I.P.C. is made out against the non-petitioner Mukesh but acquitted the non-petitioner for offence under

Section 447 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.

According to the facts of the case, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 19.6.2005 at

P.S. Kuchera wherein it was alleged that complainant is having ancestral 'bada' and on the date of incident, all the accused persons namely Mukesh, Mani

Ram, Shambhu Ram and Laxmi W/o Mukesh illegally entered in 'bada' armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant. Upon this FIR, after investigation, challan was filed against the non- petitioner and six prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial court and no defence witness was examined and ultimately, the learned trial court finally decided the matter and acquitted the non- petitioner for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and

Sections 3(1) (v) and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act but gave finding that prosecution has proved its case for offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. The judgment passed by learned trial court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and after considering entire evidence in right perspective, therefore, the finding given by learned trial court with regard to offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and other offences does not require any re-appreciation.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by Special

Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J . arun


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.