Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Mohd. Savej – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 415(2) read with Section 424 BNSS, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2024 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-07, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 341/2023 arising out of FIR No. 531/2023 registered under Sections 392/397/411 IPC at P.S. Jagat Puri.
Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof he was sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC; RI for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC; and RI for a period of 1 year alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for 1 month, for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C, was extended to the appellant.
2. The facts, in brief, as noted by the Trial Court are extracted hereunder:-
“1. As per the case of prosecution, on 13.08.2
The use of a weapon to threaten during robbery is sufficient for conviction under relevant IPC sections, supported by credible witness testimony and immediate recovery of stolen items.
The broad interpretation of the use of weapons in armed robbery under Section 397 of IPC, emphasizing that the mere display of a weapon or any action inducing fear in the victim's mind is sufficient ....
The Court established that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
(1) Although Apex Court is bestowed with capacious powers under Article 136 of Constitution, yet, while beseeching such powers in a criminal appeal by special leave, Apex Court would by and large abs....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence....
Credibility of eyewitness testimony is crucial for conviction; inconsistencies can lead to wrongful acquittals.
Recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused. Albeit under Sections 302/34 IPC, the Court in this case also opined that it was not possible to reject the ocular e....
The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent and corroborative testimony, recovery of stolen articles, and the nature of the weapon used to establish guilt in a criminal case.
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
