State Vs. Kuldeep Singh

State vs Kuldeep Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Nov 12, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1171432

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1171432
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Nov 12, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Kuldeep Singh

Excerpt

.....mehta mr.m.s.panwar, for the petitioner. the instant leave to appeal has been preferred by the state of rajasthan against the judgment dated 24.9.2013 passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, anoopgarh, district sriganganagar in cr.case no.269/2011 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the offence under section 279 and 304a ipc. i have heard learned public prosecutor and have gone through the record. the respondent was tried by the learned trial court for the offences under sections 279 and 304a ipc. the trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution could not lead any evidence to show as to how and in what manner the accident occurred. it was observed by the trial court that the sole eye-witness of the incident narendra singh the brother of the deceased could not identify the accused. he disclosed the name of the accused on the basis of the information supplied to him by two persons namely bhanwar singh and bajrang singh. bhanwar singh was examined as pw3 in the trial court and in his cross- examination, he admitted that he reached at the place of incident 5 to 7 minutes after the accident. the trial court held that bhanwar singh was not an eye-witness of the incident and rightly so. bajrang singh was not examined by the prosecution. in this view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court was passed after due and just appreciation of the evidence available on record. the trial court was absolutely justified in concluding that there was no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. hence, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to the state of rajasthan for filing appeal against the impugned judgment. accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. (sandeep mehta).j. /tarun/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.6/2014 State of Rajasthan versus Kuldeep Singh Date of order : 12.11.2014 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.M.S.Panwar, for the petitioner.

<><><> The instant leave to appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 24.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar in Cr.Case No.269/2011 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC.

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.

The respondent was tried by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution could not lead any evidence to show as to how and in what manner the accident occurred.

It was observed by the trial court that the sole eye-witness of the incident Narendra Singh the brother of the deceased could not identify the accused.

He disclosed the name of the accused on the basis of the information supplied to him by two persons namely Bhanwar Singh and Bajrang Singh.

Bhanwar Singh was examined as PW3 in the trial court and in his cross- examination, he admitted that he reached at the place of incident 5 to 7 minutes after the accident.

The trial court held that Bhanwar Singh was not an eye-witness of the incident and rightly so.

Bajrang Singh was not examined by the prosecution.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court was passed after due and just appreciation of the evidence available on record.

The trial court was absolutely justified in concluding that there was no evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to the State of Rajasthan for filing appeal against the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.

(SANDEEP MEHTA).J.

/tarun/

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties State vs Kuldeep Singh Same Subject Education