Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar @ Polu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.)
Since both these appeals emanate out of a common judgment of acquittal passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, the same were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Puran Singh was doing the work of distributing the bakery items from Raja Ka Talab to Dhameta. On 27.03.2004, the complainant was taking meal in the hotel of one Ram Prasad at Fatehpur. Both the respondents were sitting on the bench. The complainant gave money to the owner of the hotel after taking meal, which was seen by the respondent. The complainant thereafter went to Dhameta on motorcycle and when he reached at Siyal Pul, at about 3:45 p.m., both the respondents came there on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-35-5821 and stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. The respondent Manoj Kumar took out revolver and asked the complainant to hand over money. The complainant caught hold the revolver, but the respondent Manoj Kumar asked respondent Rajeev Kumar to take out knife. Respondent Rajeev Kumar gave beating to the complainant and caused injuries on his f
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade undermine credibility.
Appellate interference in acquittal justified only if perverse or unreasonable; unexplained FIR delay, absent test identification parade, omnibus allegations, and dubious night identification uphold ....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and flaws in the T.I. Parade, lack of evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecuti....
In acquittal appeals, interference only if perverse or ignoring evidence; dock identification without prior TIP insufficient for unknown accused, combined with investigative lapses like unexplained a....
Dock identification of unknown accused by witnesses without prior test identification parade is unreliable for conviction, especially with witness contradictions and evidentiary doubts.
Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating 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
