Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N.Jadhav
Azharali Jaferali Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra (through Ghatkopar Police Station) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Application (“CRA”) takes exception to twin judgments dated 31.08.2001 passed by the 31st Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Vikhroli, inter alia, convicting the Revision Applicant (accused No.2 therein) for the offence punishable under Sections 332 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for a period of three months and dated 05.08.2002 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai thereby upholding the conviction awarded by the Trial Court. By virtue of the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, accused No.1 and accused No.3 in the same offence have been acquitted. The Sessions Court has dismissed the Appeal of Applicant - accused No.2 and directed him to surrender on 06.09.2002 before the Trial Court for undergoing the sentence.
2. Present CRA is filed on 17.09.2002. On 19.09.2002, Rule was granted in the present CRA by this Court and since then Applicant - accused No.2 is on bail as this Court directed continuation of bail on the same day on furnishing a fresh bond.
3. By order
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to quashing of conviction.
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
The judgment establishes that in cases of mob violence, individual culpability can still be determined based on credible witness testimony, and that the presence of a mob does not negate the responsi....
The evidence of injured witnesses is crucial and can be the basis for conviction, but intent to kill must be established for serious charges like attempted murder under Section 307.
In criminal revision against acquittal, courts must show clear evidence of error or injustice for appeal. Acquittals are upheld unless substantial proof against accused emerges.
Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness testimonies deemed unreliable and contradictory.
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses, before their acceptance must be tested on established parameters of appreciation of evidence.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Positi....
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
