Skip to content


Balu S/O Navla Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 602 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)125
AppellantBalu S/O Navla
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused, the case of the prosecution must fail. the appellate court held that the accused did not support his case by any reliable evidence. the accused might not have adduced evidence in support of his defence, the prosecution must sustain its case by reliable evidence of its own and not on the evidence of the defence. malia (pw 1) must fail. 5. on a consideration of the entire material on the record it seems to me that the prosecution have failed to prove the case as put forward by it. it is wrong to convict an accused person because he did not support his plea by any reliable evidence. the duty of the prosecution is to prove its case to its logical conclusion and if it fails to prove, no matter what the defence the accused..........into the land bearing khasra no. 275, situated in village banki, which was in possession of stat. malia.2. in support of its case the prosecution mainly relied upon the testmony of malia pw 1. the trial court accepted her evidence and convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of rs. 200/-, for the offence under section 325 indian penal code. on appeal the sentence was reduced.3. in this revision petition, it is contended that on the finding of the courts below since the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused, the case of the prosecution must fail. the courts below have held that the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused. if that were to be so, the.....
Judgment:

C. Honniah, C.J.

1. The facts leading to the prosecution of the accused-petitioner lie in a narrow compass : On August 16, 1971, according to the prosecution, the accused-petitioner trespassed into the land bearing Khasra No. 275, situated in village Banki, which was in possession of Stat. Malia.

2. In support of its case the prosecution mainly relied upon the testmony of Malia PW 1. The trial court accepted her evidence and convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, for the offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. On appeal the sentence was reduced.

3. In this revision petition, it is contended that on the finding of the courts below since the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused, the case of the prosecution must fail. The courts below have held that the land, where the incident took place, was in possession of the accused. If that were to be so, the story of Smt. Malia that the accused trespassed into her land and assaulted her cannot be accepted.

3. The accused petitioner in his defence pleaded that Smt. Malia sustained injuries on account of a buffalo scaring her. No evidence was produced by the accused petitioner in support of his defence. The appellate court held that the accused did not support his case by any reliable evidence. Because the accused petitioner did not support his case, the appellant court has accepted the evidence of Smt. Malia. This reasoning of the appellate court cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused petitioner. The accused might not have adduced evidence in support of his defence, the prosecution must sustain its case by reliable evidence of its own and not on the evidence of the defence. If the incident happened on the land belonging to the accused as found by the courts below, the prosecution case as put forward by Smt. Malia (PW 1) must fail.

5. On a consideration of the entire material on the record it seems to me that the prosecution have failed to prove the case as put forward by it. It is wrong to convict an accused person because he did not support his plea by any reliable evidence. The duty of the prosecution is to prove its case to its logical conclusion and if it fails to prove, no matter what the defence the accused took, the case must fail.

6. For the reasons stated avove, I allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him, He is on bail and need not surrender to the bail bonds.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //