Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Gopi Chand @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State (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[High Court] dated 02.08.2013, whereby six appeals including two appeals2[i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos. 349 and 352 of 2009] of the appellant against the order(s) of trial court in Sessions Case Nos. 25 and 25-A of 2008, arising from FIR3[First Information Report] No.300 of 1984 at P.S.4[Police Station] Civil Lines, and FIR No.190 of 1984 at P.S. Alipur, respectively, were dismissed. As single set of evidence was led in both the trials, the High Court proceeded to decide the appeals by a common impugned order. As a result, these two appeals were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. Two dead bodies were found under jurisdiction of different police stations. One body was found on 13.7.1984, which gave rise to FIR No.300/ 1984 at P.S. Civil Lines, and the other was found on 16.7.1984, which gave rise to FIR No. 190/1984 at P.S. Alipur. FIR No.300 gave rise to Sessions Case No.25 of 2008 whereas FIR No.190/1984 gave rise to Sessions Case No.25-A of 2008. The dead body concerning FIR No. 300/1984 was identified as that of Arun Kuma
The reliability of witness testimony is critical, especially in murder cases; inadmissible evidence and procedural lapses can lead to wrongful convictions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of corroborative evidence in relation to the material particulars of the testimony of an approver and the principle that the accuse....
The testimony of an approver must be corroborated by reliable evidence to sustain a conviction; uncorroborated evidence is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
(1) Accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and this presumption gets doubled with acquittal by Trial Court.(2) Before testimony of Approver may be used as evidence to record conviction....
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete to establish guilt; the evidence of an approver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
Point of Law : Approver is a competent witness but position in law is fairly well settled that on uncorroborated testimony of approver, it would be risky to base conviction, particularly, in respect ....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on an accomplice's testimony, which requires corroboration.
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
