Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, R. MAHADEVAN
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital1[hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”], in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2006, Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar3[hereinafter shortly referred to as “the Sessions Court”] in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1998, State v. Veer Singh and two others.
2. The appellant Sandeep along with two others viz., Veer Singh and Dharamveer, was tried for having caused the murder of one Abdul Hameed on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., and thereby committed the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, “the Arms Act”). The Sessions Court, in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No.208 of 1998, found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo
Common intention – For a person to be convicted under Section 34 of IPC, there must be involvement of two or more persons with common intention to commit crime – Mere presence of accused at scene of ....
Point of Law; It is well settled by plethora of judicial pronouncements by this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless prove....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the assessment of witness credibility, and the significance of consistent an....
(1) Recovery of weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non to convict accused – If there is direct evidence in form of eye witness, even in absence of recovery of weapon, accused can ....
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
(1) Minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance that don’t go to root of matter. Such contradictions are not material contradictions and evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed asid....
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
