S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 96/1992. Case: State of Rajasthan Vs Brahmanand and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case Number:S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 96/1992
Party Name:State of Rajasthan Vs Brahmanand and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: R.R. Singh, Public Prosecutor and For Respondents: P.R.S. Rajawat, Adv.
Judges:Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.
Issue:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 378; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 380, 457
Judgement Date:February 14, 2017
Court:Rajasthan High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

  1. Criminal leave to appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan under sub-Section (1) & (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27-06-1991 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 425/1983, whereby the accused persons Brahmanand and Lala Ram (respondents in this appeal) have been acquitted from charges levelled against them under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

  2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09-07-1980 at about 1:30 PM, Shri Jagmal Singh (PW-1) gave a written report (Ex. P-7) of Shri Shambhu Dutt Shastri, Incharge of Deodhi Khas, City Palace, Alwar to Indra Kumar (PW-9) stating therein that on inspection of Janana Mahal on 30-06-1980, it was found that a valuable carpet and three tables were missing, whereupon a FIR No. 287/1980 under Section 457 and 380 of IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. During investigation the accused/respondent Brahmanand and Lala Ram were arrested on 28-07-1980 vide Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10 respectively, and two carpets, one of which was like floor mat were recovered at the instance of the accused Lala Ram on 28-07-1980. A carpet was also recovered on 05-08-1980 from the house of Babli @ Yash Kumar (PW-2), at the instance of the accused Brahmanand. Further, footprints and fingerprints were taken from the spot. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused/respondents in the concerned Court. Charges were framed against the accused/respondents for offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/respondents. The accused/respondents pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried

  3. In support of it's case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited some documents.

  4. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused/respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused/respondents stated that they have been falsely implicated and no recovery was made at their instance. In defence, no witness was examined.

  5. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents from the offence under Section 380 and 457 of IPC giving them benefit of doubt, vide impugned judgment dated 27-06-1991.

  6. Being aggrieved with the said judgment dated...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL