State of Rajasthan Vs. Sakudi

State of Rajasthan vs Sakudi

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 06, 1989

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762992

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/762992
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra, J.
Decided On: Jan 06, 1989
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 73 of 1988
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 302 and Criminal Procedure Code--Framing of charge--Recovery of Lathi and statement of M--Held, it is not sufficient to frame charge against accused.;From the said recovery of a Lathi and statement of Mal Singh, it cannot be said that there exists sufficient ground for framing charge under Secti...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Sakudi

Legal References

Reported In: 1989WLN(UC)143

Excerpt

penal code - section 302 and criminal procedure code--framing of charge--recovery of lathi and statement of m--held, it is not sufficient to frame charge against accused.;from the said recovery of a lathi and statement of mal singh, it cannot be said that there exists sufficient ground for framing charge under section 302, ipc against the accused sakudi.;revision dismissed - - as such there is no good ground for interference in the order under revision......no material on record for framing charge against her under section 302, ipc.2. it has been contended by the learned public prosecutor that at the instance of the accused-respondent sakudi. a lathi was recovered by which the deceased baliya was injured and the prosecution witness mal singh saw the accused sakudi running towards the deceased balia.3. i reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent sakudi that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the fact stated in it are totally incorrect, it is stated there in that sakudi murdered her husband and the prosecution case is that she murdered balia. he further contended that the court allowed time to amend the revision petition vide order dated 13 12-1988 and state has not so far amended the revision petition. he also contended that mere recovery of the lathi does not connect sakudi with the crime as it was not found stained with blood. he lastly contended that no offence is made out against the accused sakudi even from the statement of the prosecution witness mal singh where in he has disclosed that he saw sakudi running towards baliya telling that he had tried to molest her.4. from the said recovery of a lathi and statement of mal singh, it cannot be said that there exists sufficient ground of framing charge under section 302, ipc against the accused sakudi as required under section 427, cr.p.c. 1973. the learned sessions judge has rightly held that there exists no sufficient material against the accused sakudi warranting framing of charge under section 302, ipc against him. as such there is no good ground for interference in the order under revision.5. accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Milap Chandra, J.

1. This is a revision petition under Sections 497 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated December 5, 1987 by which he discharged the accused-respondent Sakudi on the ground that there exists no material on record for framing charge against her under Section 302, IPC.

2. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that at the instance of the accused-respondent Sakudi. a Lathi was recovered by which the deceased Baliya was injured and the prosecution Witness Mal Singh saw the accused Sakudi running towards the deceased Balia.

3. I reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent Sakudi that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the fact stated in it are totally incorrect, it is stated there in that Sakudi murdered her husband and the prosecution case is that she murdered Balia. He further contended that the Court allowed time to amend the revision petition vide order dated 13 12-1988 and State has not so far amended the revision petition. He also contended that mere recovery of the Lathi does not connect Sakudi with the crime as it was not found stained with blood. He lastly contended that no offence is made out against the accused Sakudi even from the statement of the prosecution witness Mal Singh where in he has disclosed that he saw Sakudi running towards Baliya telling that he had tried to molest her.

4. From the said recovery of a Lathi and statement of Mal Singh, it cannot be said that there exists sufficient ground of framing charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused Sakudi as required under Section 427, Cr.P.C. 1973. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there exists no sufficient material against the accused Sakudi warranting framing of charge under Section 302, IPC against him. As such there is no good ground for interference in the order under revision.

5. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1989 Same Parties State of Rajasthan vs Sakudi Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Milap Chandra, J.

Criminal