Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Wahid – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. These two appeals impugn a common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1[The High Court] dated 15.11.2018, inter alia, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1015 of 2017 and 1132 of 2017, whereby the appeals of the appellants preferred against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi (i.e., the Trial Court) dated 16.08.2017 passed in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2014 were dismissed.
2. The appellants along with two others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC] and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 19593[Arms Act] in connection with F.I.R. No. 512 of 2011 at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.
3. Appellant Wahid was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, but acquitted under Section 411 IPC. For his conviction under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, Wahid was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, coupled with a default sentence of two years. Insofar as appellant Anshu is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC to
(1) FIR – In cases where FIR is lodged against unknown persons and persons made accused are not known to witnesses, material collected during investigation plays important role to determine whether t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable witness identification led to the appellant's acquittal.
Recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused. Albeit under Sections 302/34 IPC, the Court in this case also opined that it was not possible to reject the ocular e....
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating evidence.
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
