Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajkumar Halba 3 Sa/541/2006 Smt.Meera ... on 26 August, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                   1
                                                CRMP No. 1923 of 2019

                                                              NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRMP No. 1923 of 2019

    State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station
      Ambagarh Chowk, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                      ---- Applicant

                             Versus

    Rajkumar Halba S/o Ramsewak Halba Aged About 39 Years
      R/o Village Kodemara, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki,
      District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ---- Respondent




For Applicant-State           :-       Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL


               Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra
               Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.

Order on Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J 26/08/2019

1. Heard.

2. On due consideration, delay of 171 days in filing the present Cr.M.P. is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 stands allowed.

3. The trial Court has acquitted the of the charges under Section 307 of IPC.

2

CRMP No. 1923 of 2019

4. The accused allegedly caused grievous injuries over the neck of the injured PW-1 Agesh @ Ageshwari by means of knife. However, neither the injured nor eye witness Ramsevak, PW-2, would support the case of prosecution. Similarly other witnesses namely PW-3, Bhagat Singh, PW- 4, Neering Sai, PW-5, Radhika Bai, PW-6, Devshankar, PW- 7, Malti, PW-8, Chainkuwar Bai, PW-9, Bhuwan Lal Sinha and PW-10, Ramchandra Taaram have also not supported the case of prosecution. The injured happens to be the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the accused.

5. Considering the nature and quality of evidence available on record the present is not the fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

6. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. is dismissed.

                      Sd/-                                 Sd/-

        (Prashant Kumar Mishra)                  (Gautam Chourdiya)
                   Judge                              Judge

Ankit