State Vs. Jagga Singh

State vs Jagga Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Feb 12, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/973446

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/973446
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Feb 12, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Jagga Singh

Excerpt

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur order the state of raj. vs. jagga singh s.b. criminal leave to appeal no.123/2012 under section 378((iii) & (i), cr.p.c. against the judgment dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned addl. sessions judge no.1, hanumangarh in sessions case no.73/2011. date of order :12. 2.2013 present hon'ble mr. atul kumar jain, j.mr. ashok prajapat, public prosecutor for the state. mr. rajendra charan for the respondent. by the court: in sessions case no.73/2011 accused jagga singh s/o natha singh majabi sikh r/o dhanka wali dhani, hanumangarh was acquitted from the charges of sections 450 and 376 ipc by the learned additional sessions judge no., 1, hanumangarh by his judgment dated 17.4.2012. against that acquittal, the state has prayed for leave to appeal. 2 leave to appeal in this case cannot be granted to the state in the following background:(1) the prosecutrix smt. veerpal kaur has stated in court that she was not knowing accused jagga singh by name before-hand. she says that name of accused jagga singh was mentioned by her in fir on the basis of the statements of other villagers who had reached the spot after the incident.(2) in fir it has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix that she was not knowing the accused by name and she has mentioned the name of the accused only on the basis of the statements of other villagers.(3) the prosecutrix was examined in the sessions case as pw-7. she has specifically stated in her cross-examination like this: ...... ! # % ! % ) ...... + - " ------ ! % + % % - " ! # ----- ! + 3 - ! # ------- % + % % " looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, leave to appeal against acquittal cannot be granted in this matter. it is also pertinent to mention here the statement of pw-12 dr. raj pal godara, who also says that there was no marks of any injury on the breasts or vagina of the prosecutrix. in these circumstances, granting leave to appeal against acquittal may be abuse of.....

Full Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER The State of Raj. vs. Jagga Singh S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.123/2012 under Section 378((iii) & (i), Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.73/2011. Date of Order :

12. 2.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J.

Mr. Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Rajendra Charan for the respondent. BY THE COURT: In Sessions Case No.73/2011 accused Jagga Singh s/o Natha Singh Majabi Sikh r/o Dhanka Wali Dhani, Hanumangarh was acquitted from the charges of Sections 450 and 376 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No., 1, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 17.4.2012. Against that acquittal, the State has prayed for leave to appeal. 2 Leave to appeal in this case cannot be granted to the State in the following background:

(1) The prosecutrix Smt. Veerpal Kaur has stated in court that she was not knowing accused Jagga Singh by name before-hand. She says that name of accused Jagga Singh was mentioned by her in FIR on the basis of the statements of other villagers who had reached the spot after the incident.

(2) In FIR it has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix that she was not knowing the accused by name and she has mentioned the name of the accused only on the basis of the statements of other villagers.

(3) The prosecutrix was examined in the sessions case as PW-

7. She has specifically stated in her cross-examination like this: ...... ! # % ! % ) ...... + - " ------ ! % + % % - " ! # ----- ! + 3 - ! # ------- % + % % " Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix, leave to appeal against acquittal cannot be granted in this matter. It is also pertinent to mention here the statement of PW-12 Dr. Raj Pal Godara, who also says that there was no marks of any injury on the breasts or vagina of the prosecutrix. In these circumstances, granting leave to appeal against acquittal may be abuse of process, so in the interest of justice leave to appeal against acquittal order is not granted and prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor in this respect is hereby refused. The application be deemed to be disposed of accordingly. ( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

mlt/31

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2013 Same Parties State vs Jagga Singh Same Subject Education