State of Rajasthan Vs. Jeet Singh and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Rajasthan High Court|
|Case Number||S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 150/73|
|Judge|| C. Honniah, C.J.|
|Appellant||State of Rajasthan|
|Respondent||Jeet Singh and anr.|
..... - sections 394, 458, 342 & 323--complainants not identifying accused--held, magistrate was justified in acquitting accused.;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.....c. honniah, c.j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the case against the accused was that they beat ram kishan p.w. 1 and his wife and took away rs. 40/- and thereby committed offences under sections 394, 458, 342 and 323 indian penal code.3. ram kishan and his wife did not identify the accused as the persons who committed the offences. therefore, the learned magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. hence this appeal fails and is dismissed.
C. Honniah, C.J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The case against the accused was that they beat Ram Kishan P.W. 1 and his wife and took away Rs. 40/- and thereby committed offences under Sections 394, 458, 342 and 323 Indian Penal Code.
3. Ram Kishan and his wife did not identify the accused as the persons who committed the offences. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed.