Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 9th September, 2021, rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’] whereby the criminal appeals2 [Criminal Appeal No. 7215 of 2018 was filed by Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati, and Criminal Appeal No. 7269 of 2018 was filed by Asif Mevati] filed by the appellants Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati3 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Irfan’] and Asif Mevati4 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Asif’] were dismissed, and the criminal reference5 [Criminal Reference No. 14 of 2018] under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736 [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] instituted upon being forwarded by the 2nd Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh7 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’] was allowed and the death penalty awarded to the appellants was confirmed.
2. The appellants were tried by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(m), 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18608 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] Section 376(DB) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordin
The failure to examine scientific experts regarding DNA evidence violated the right to a fair trial, necessitating a remand for a fresh trial.
(1) Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to accused as is to victim and society.(2) In hallowed halls of justice, essence of fair and impartial trial lies in steadfast embrace of judicial calm.
The absence of critical evidence and failure to provide the accused a fair opportunity to contest significant claims violated the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented and for non-acceptance of the same, it is to be established that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. If the sampl....
DNA evidence requires proper documentation and chain of custody to be admissible; conviction cannot solely rely on such evidence without corroborating proof.
The prosecution must establish the identity and age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offense cases, particularly involving minors, and the evidentiary value of DNA reports is contingen....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the primary witness turns hostile, and reliance on inconsistent testimony and improperly handled DNA evidence is insufficient....
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
