Back
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Suraj – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.08.2023 and 30.10.2023 respectively, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 308 IPC in FIR No.477/2021 registered at PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
2. In brief, the law was set into motion vide DD No.89A on 23.08.2021 followed by registration of FIR No.477/2021, PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi under Section 308/34 IPC on the statement of Sunny (PW1), which culminated in filing of charge-sheet against appellant Suraj and co-accused Robin. It may be noticed at this stage itself that co-accused Robin who was charge-sheeted along with the appellant was acquitted vide the impugned judgment.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.08.2021, injured Arjun (PW-2) received a call from appellant Suraj to meet him in Matke Wali Gali, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. When Arjun reached Matke Wali Gali along with his friend/neighbour Sunny (PW-1/complainant), he was confronted by appellant on the issue of Arjun having proximity with his ex-girlfriend namely Monika. Arjun was further assaulted by
Reliance on the testimony of a single witness and the gravity of injuries in determining the intention behind the assault.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
The credibility of witness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the quality of evidence are crucial in determining guilt or innocence.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborating witness testimonies with medical evidence and recognized the spontaneous nature of the incident in determining culpability.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so, due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
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
