Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Naushad @ Bombay – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and convictions (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present appeals have been instituted under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2021 and order on sentence dated 06.08.2021 passed by the learned ASJ-02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Session Case No.3550/2019 pertaining to case arising out of FIR No.163/2019 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC at PS-Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
2. While both the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC, the appellant/Naushad was additionally convicted for the offence under Section 397 IPC. While the appellant/Naushad was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, the appellant/Salman was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years. Both the appellants were also directed to deposit fine of Rs.10,000/- with the State and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
As both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide a common judgment, the appeals are disposed of vide a common judgment.
3. The incident came in
Credibility of eyewitness testimony is crucial for conviction; inconsistencies can lead to wrongful acquittals.
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.
Robbery and Dacoity - Conviction upheld - Complainant and appellant were known to each other being erstwhile classmates - Appellant from inception has taken consistent defence of false implication at....
The Court established that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
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 presumption of innocence is fundamental; convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or unproven allegations, requiring robust proof from the prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence to establish an individual's culpability for alleged criminal offences.
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....
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
