Back
MUKTA GUPTA, ANISH DAYAL
Humesh @ Babu @ Murari – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J. These appeals assail the impugned judgment dated 27th July, 2019 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting appellants Humesh @ Babu @ Murari, Parveen @ Naveen @ Vikky and Amit guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and in addition convicting Parveen for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Amit for offence punishable under Section 174A (Part I) IPC. The appeals further assail the order on sentence dated 31st July, 2019 sentencing the three appellants Umesh, Parveen and Amit for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (RI for six months in default of payment of fine), and sentencing Parveen to rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs.2000/- (RI for six months in default of payment of fine) and sentencing Amit for simple imprisonment for 3 years for offence punishable under Section 174A(Part I). All sentences were to run concurrently.
Incident
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 4th October, 2010 at 9.50 p.m. a PCR call was recorded vide DD No. 41A regarding stabbing of a person near House No. 470 near Dayama
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent eyewitness testimonies, forensic evidence, and motive to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
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 credibility of ocular testimonies, corroborative evidence, and motive for the crime were central to establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen witness's testimony, the recovery of bloodstained items, and the admissibility of the appellants' statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence A....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence lead to acquittal.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
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
