Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHALYA versus STATE AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MAHALYA v STATE AND ORS - CRLR Case No. 311 of 1998 [2007] RD-RJ 552 (25 January 2007)

//1//

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 311//1998

MAHALYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE: 25.01.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

None present for the complainanat petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, PP for the State.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma for

Mr. Anurag Sharma for the accuse-respondents.

****

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.07.93 the complainant-petitioner lodged a written report at

Police Station Bamanwas, wherein it was alleged that in the morning at 7'O clock, when his brother was trying to get the cows and buffalo out which were entered in his farm, on this account he was chased and beaten up by the accused-respondents. It was also alleged that his brother was taken to hospital at Bamanwas for treatment. On the basis of the said report, a formal

FIR was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation challan was filed. The

Court below has taken cognizance against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The //2// prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The accused-respondents in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of land dispute between the parties. After completion of the trial, the

Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate,

Bamanwas vide its judgment dated 03.02.98 passed in

Criminal Case No. 106/93, has acquitted all the accused-respondents from the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 147 IPC.

I have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and carefully perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution along with the statements of PW1 to PW7 and the evidence of the accused recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C.

In cross examination all the witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondents. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has been extended in favour of the accused and they have been acquitted from the offence under

Sections 147, 323 and 341 IPC. //3//

I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment dated 03.02.98 passed by the trial Court and the same requires no interference by this Court.

Consequently, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

Record be sent back forthwith.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.