Back
MUKTA GUPTA, ANISH DAYAL
Pardeep – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By these four appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment dated 29th September 2020 convicting all the four appellants for murder of one Surjit Singh ("deceased") by stabbing him with a knife, after hatching a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery of the tractor bearing registration number HR30G 4498, mobile phone Nokia 1209 and currency amount of Rs.2,500/- all belonging to one Bhim Singh ("injured") who was also hurt by the appellants while committing the offence; and order on sentence dated 19th October, 2020 wherein the appellants Anil, Kaushal and Mehtab were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default whereof simple imprisonment of one year for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). These three appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default whereof simple imprisonment of one year for offence punishable under section 120B IPC and Sections 392/394/397 r/w Section 120B IPC. Appellant Anil was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for offence under section 414
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapons and stolen property, and the application of legal principles related to murder, robbery, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy and credible evidence, as well as the need for corroboration when relying on a solitary eyewitness. The court also ....
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in relation to all material particulars and there exists no ground whatsoever for the modification of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.202....
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The court confirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and recovery of weapon and stolen items are sufficient to uphold convictions under IPC sections for murder and robbery.
The testimony of the complainant as the victim should be accorded great weightage unless there are strong grounds for rejection.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
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
