Raghbir Singh v. Ram Rattan And ORS.



 

  
   


  



  





 

!"#"$%%&

 '
 




(     '


 ($) *( % '
%'% + *%
,,,,
 





(Amicus Curiae)

 
 
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Mr. Pratyush Sood and Mr. Nishant Arora, Advocates for the respondents.

%'% + *- %. */



 

 
  

 !


   
"
!


  #$%!

&%

 

'(())**+

"
 








,
 





"
 




-.-/



  
(
 ' 




"

"
 


 $%!

)+*1)**2

"
 
 


%




3
/*2

)2*()**4#(2*))**4
 
%

5-
/6

*7*()**1
%

')'
')4
'1(
'1)
14)
'61
(17
(12

1)7

-3



 





8  "

 
%
 
9 
 :

"
&%
 !

)

"  
 

 
 
!
3!!%



!




*7*()**1

8 
 
!
8


%
$
8 
8
  
 


!

 

8 
!

 

 
!!" 
 !
3!!%


 
!
8



" 
"

 
8 


 

 

  
 
"!

 
!!"
 !
3!!% 

$
 
8 

!
 
;
 %


!
$

!
<  ! 

 
 
!




  

!
  
,


 

   

 

 


 
!
  
)

!
8
 

 


 
5-

&%
!

"
 

 
%
 
-
8%

!



 !
8 

 
%
 
!
 


8
 
"  
 
-&
 
%

')'
')4
'1(
'1)
14)
'61
1)7
4*6
(17

(12
 
-3


'61
 
-3
8
=%
 "
"
 
3% 
 
    
 

8
!!


3% 
 

!!!

 
'



 

 
%
 

 !
8 
  
 

!!




% "
%

(12
(1+
')'
')4
'61

14)

-3

8  


%

!
 

1

-
 

 


 
 %
=!
 "

#
5
3 

>(
<  !"

#


?


>;)
?

 



#


3

$$%
!

>;'

?

8
#


?

>1
"
#


!
@ 

>;4
< 
A
@ 

>6
!
3 
8 
,&


>;7
!
@%!
/
-

>2
3 

#


B

>;+
3"

@%!

>;(*
<8

 -

>;

((


 
@%!
#


!
<

>()
C

 -

>;('

% 
#


!
<

>;(1
! 
#


 

>;(4

4
 
% 

 
 %

 
!

 %
 
%

'('
3 3
8 
 
8  
 
%"!

 


 

"

!

 

<%!

=<(

=<()


"


 

" 
 
%
 

 
 


6
 
 
"

 
 
3% 
&%

 
%
 
 !
,
 



7



 
(Amicus Curiae)
 

" 
 


 
!%
$%!

"
 
 
3% 


  


%"

 
 

8
0 
!

"

% !

$% 

 
 
 
3% 


%
!
 

&%
 
%
 



 
< 

B

.



=!
 
$% 
 

  
 
A 
,8 
 
 
 %

 
 
3% 
"  

=!
 

! 
8



 
"
 
% 
%


 
%"
 % 
8 
%

$%

 
!
  


%"!
 
  8
 


 
 %

8
" 

 

 
8 
 
 
3% 
 
8





 
 %
$%!


 %
  
 
!%
$%!
!
"



 
%
 
!
"

2
.
 
 

 
B% 
 %


(Amicus Curiae) appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is well reasoned, justified and has been passed in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said judgment. He further submits that the prosecution had utterly failed to examine the doctor who had treated the injured persons which was a serious lacuna in the case of prosecution. He further submits that the star witness of the prosecution case namely Ram Phal, when appeared into the witness box as PW15, deposed that he had no knowledge of the case and he had never made any statement before the police. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents also pointed out certain other discrepancies and lacunae in the case of prosecution and prayed for upholding the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

+
-

 
 
%

 

 



% 
%!

 
! 
"

 
(*

 %

 
 8
 
< 

B

.

 
8 
 
 
$% 
 


  
 
A 


"
=!
"

 %


% 
 
A 
 
$% 
 
%

"
 

 
5%   
>(4
!
 


% 
 

 
 %

% 


 
 
 %


" 
!
  
!
%

')4

-3

 
8
!
.!
  
8 

%
 %
% 




 
8
"=



 %
 
 %
>)
<  !"



=!

  

"%
 
% 

 

!

=
"%


 ;



=!

 

 

!
8
 
"
 


 





,
8

%
 

! 

>(
 "

"%
 
!

 

 


 %!"

 
8 
!
 

0 
!
8 
 
8

  


 %
 

 8
 




"




 
 

5%   
 

!
"
>(1
!
<

%

 
  
&%
 

"



 %!
 
 8
 
 %

! "


" 
!
 
%
 %
 

 

"
 
&%
"
 
 
3% 


!

((
-
 
 
"
 
3% 




 
   
!  

; 



 
!%
$%!
0 
!

"

 
 



! 
 %
"  
 
 
3% 
,
  


 %

  
8 
!%
$%!

"
 
 
3% 
()

% 
 




 "
!

 !%
$%!

)+*1)**2

"
 
 
3% 


3
/*2

)2*()**4#(2*))**4
 
%

5-
/6

*7*()**1
%


')'
')4
'1(
'1)
14)
'61
(17
(12

1)7

-3
 






8  "

 
%
 
9 
 :

"
&%
 !

 "
% 
.%'% + */
(

-&%