Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad vs State Of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1668

VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Omkar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Divyadeep Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Shashwat Sidhant, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ishita Dhaila, Adv. Mr. Pritish Arya, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeals by special leave are preferred on behalf of appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali alias Ali Akhtar alias Shamim alias Raja Ustad¹[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’; appellant in Criminal Appeals @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14-15 of 2020.] and appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma²[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma’; appellant in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6573 of 2020.], assailing the common judgment dated 18th October 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital³[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.] in Criminal Appeals⁴ Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2016 along with Criminal Reference No.1. of 2016 and others.], partially upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the Special Judge (POCSO)/Fast Track Court/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital⁵[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘the trial Court’.] vide judgment and order of sentence dated 11th March, 2016 in Session Trial Case⁶[Session Trial No. 09 of 2015.], whereby accused- appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was convicted