Back
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in Appeal No. 1458/2001, whereby the judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in S.T. No. 116/1994 was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
FACTS:
2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of the instant appeal.
2.1. On 08.05.1994, Farzan Ali, the Complainant, filed an FIR being Case Crime No. 84/1994 at the Vikasnagar Police Station, Dehradun, recounting the events of the previous night. He reported that his son Imran, along with his friends Mathu, Irfan, and Jakir, had gone for a latenight cinema show in Vikasnagar. On their return around 12:30 a.m., they saw the Appellant and the other accused—Raju, Bhola Ram, Manoj, and Suresh — standing near Gopal's house. The Appell
Attempt to murder – Conviction under Section 307 of IPC may be justified only if accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution – Ascertaining intention to k....
(1) A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify offence, cannot be treated as FIR.(2) What constitutes proof of common intention, may differ from situation to situation.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists regarding a prosecution's case, it must favor the accused, leading to acquittal.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to significant doubts regarding eyewitness credibility and procedural inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
The court ruled that insufficient evidence existed to support a conviction for attempted murder, while affirming convictions for lesser offences based on corroborated witness testimony.
Murder – Unintentional homicide do not come within ambit of Section 302 of IPC.
The court reaffirmed that specific overt acts are crucial for conviction in homicide cases, while witness reliability, particularly regarding tutoring, significantly impacts the assessment of evidenc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
