Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AAYUB – Appellant
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petition under relevant sections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments questioning evidence and eyewitness reliability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. criteria for framing charges and prima facie case. (Para 14 , 19) |
| 5. dismissing the petition and order for compliance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking the following prayers: -
“a) Call for the records of the present case from the Ld. Trial Court.
b) Allow the revision of the revisionist and set aside impugned Order on Charge and Framing of Charge Dated 08.11.2024 passed by the passed by the Court of Ms. Shail Jain, Ld. Principal Distt. & Session Judge (East), KKD Courts, Delhi under section 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act in SC No. 396/22 thereby discharged the revisionist;
b) Pass such other and/or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in the interest of justice.”
2. Briefly stating facts of the present case are that, on 10.06.2015 at around 02:10 AM,
The court emphasized that framing charges requires a prima facie case supported by credible evidence and witness statements without conducting a mini trial.
The court determined that at the discharge stage, only a prima facie case is considered, and sufficient evidence of grievous injury justified framing charges under attempted murder.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies can lead to acquittal.
At the stage of framing of the charge, the accused has no right to produce any material, and the trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case has be....
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
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
