Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, MADHU JAIN
State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,‘CrPC’) assailing the impugned judgment dated 15th November, 2014 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by ld. ASJ Special Judge (NDPS)(West), Tis Hazari, Delhi inSessions Case No.3/2011 arising out ofFIR No. 339/2010 Police Station Punjabi Bagh.
2. By the impugned order, the accused/Respondents (hereinafter ‘Respondents’) Sh. Sanjeev Singh and Sh. Shivji Jaiswal @ Guddu were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 /34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’), on the ground that the Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the Respondents. The conclusion of the ld. Trial Court is set out below:
“56. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered viewthatprosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the two accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302/34, 323/34 IPC . Benefit of doubt is given to both the accused.Therefore, both the accused Sanjeev Singh and Shivji Jaiswal @Guddu are acquitte
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, unreliable recovery of the weapon, and a defective investigation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lapses in investigation and reliance on questionable evidence necessitate acquittal.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit o....
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
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
