State of Raj. Vs. Jarman and ors.

State of Raj. vs Jarman and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 01, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757356

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/757356
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Farooq Hasan, J.
Decided On: Feb 01, 1991
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 578/84
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Sections 148, 300 and 307/149--Ingredients of Section 300 found lacking--Held, respondents were rightly not found guilty Under Section 307.;The trial Court found all the essential ingredients of Section 300, IPC, so as to make out the case against the respondents for the offence Under Section 307, IPC, ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Raj.

Respondent

Jarman and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1991(1)WLN125

Excerpt

.....ingredients of section 300, ipc, so as to make out the case against the respondents for the offence under section 307, ipc, as lacking. hence, the respondents were rightly found not guilty under sections 307 & 148 or 307/149 ipc.;(b) penal code - sections 148, 300, 307/149 and criminal procedure code--appeal against acquittal--grounds for acquittal reasonable and plausible--two views possible--held, no interference with acquittal is required.;the grounds on which the trial court based its order acquitting the respondents were reasonable and plausible and that was the only view which could have been taken by the trial court and they cannot be dislodged by disturbing the acquittal even if two views are possible after re-appraisal of the evidence which is not the case in hand here also. therefore, i find no reason to interfere with the acquittal after lapse of ten years also.;appeal dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007..........to establish that the respondents have inflicted any blow causing injuries on his person because, looking to the allegation of causing injuries made in his evidence, the corresponding injuries were not found by the doctor on the person of the injured. therefore, the acts alleged against the respondents were found to be unproved, inasmuch as the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the intention or any knowledge on the part of the respondents that the acts which they were going to do, or the injury which they were going to inflict, would cause death. the trial court found all the essential ingredients of section 300, ipc, so as to make out the case against the respondents for the offence under section 307, ipc, as lacking. hence, the respondents were rightly found not guilty under sections 307 & 148 or 307/149, ipc. having considered the findings arrived at by the trial court, i am of the opinion that the grounds on which the trial court based its order acquitting the respondents were reasonable and plausible and that was the only view which could have been taken by the trial court and they cannot be dislodged by disturbing the acquittal even if two views are possible after re-appraisal of the evidence which is not the case in hand here also. therefore, i find no reason to interfere with the acquittal after lapse of ten years also.3. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. the respondents are on bail and need not surrender. the record be sent back.

Full Judgment

Farooq Hasan, J.

1. In Sess. Case No. 67/83, the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, vide his judgment dated 31.10.83 acquitted the respondents, namely, Jarman, Nahney, Mani @ Mansingh, Girraj & Ramjit of the offences charged Under Sections 148, 307, & 307/149 IPC, for the incident alleged to have taken place on 26.7.81. Hence this appeal.

2. In all nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The trial Court found the presence of the witnesses, namely, Mohan Singh, Mansukha, Ram Singh & Hari Singh, as dubious and doubtful inasmuch as it held that the witnesses named in the complaint all were having animus & enemical relations with the accused- respondents with long standing and they were interested and from their evidence, taking support will be fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was held to be untrustworthy as a result of the effect of the incongruities and inconsistencies full of concoction. The trial Court held that the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident and the witnesses have changed the place of incident in their evidence by resiling from their earliest version given out before the police. That being so, out of 17 accused in the first information report, the police filed challan only against seven persons and only two persons have been held guilty. The injured Raghuvir (PW 1) has failed to establish that the respondents have inflicted any blow causing injuries on his person because, looking to the allegation of causing injuries made in his evidence, the corresponding injuries were not found by the doctor on the person of the injured. Therefore, the acts alleged against the respondents Were found to be unproved, inasmuch as the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the intention or any knowledge on the part of the respondents that the acts which they were going to do, or the injury which they were going to inflict, would cause death. The trial Court found all the essential ingredients of Section 300, IPC, so as to make out the case against the respondents for the offence Under Section 307, IPC, as lacking. Hence, the respondents were rightly found not guilty Under Sections 307 & 148 or 307/149, IPC. Having considered the findings arrived at by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the grounds on which the trial court based its order acquitting the respondents were reasonable and plausible and that was the only view which could have been taken by the trial Court and they cannot be dislodged by disturbing the acquittal even if two views are possible after re-appraisal of the evidence which is not the case in hand here also. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the acquittal after lapse of ten years also.

3. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The respondents are on bail and need not surrender. The record be sent back.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties State of Raj. vs Jarman and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Farooq Hasan, J.

Criminal