On 05.03.2009 at about 08:30 p.m., Shiv Bhagwan had seen the deceased – Ram Chandra at the bus stand interacting with 3-4 persons, as they wanted to hire the vehicle to take them till Kuchaman. These facts, Shiv Bhagwan’s identification of the appellants – Jagdish and Prakash in the test identification parade, and the dock identification as the persons he had seen with the deceased – Ram Chandra on 05.03.2009, establish the prosecution’s against the appellants – Jagdish and Prakash, beyond doubt. Instead, they are convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years, fine of Rs.
Given the divarication and divergence, we are not inclined to accept the dock identification of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh by the complainant/informant – Shiv Bhagwan, as the sole basis to uphold the conviction of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh. The appellant – Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
Case Title: JAGDISH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2023 INSC 153)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000276-000278 / 2022
