M. A. CHOWDHARY
Narinder Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State (now UT) of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2011 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri [“trial Court”] in file No.50-A/Sessions titled ‘State of J&K v. Narinder Pal Singh @ Vicky & Ors.’, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 325 RPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment of similar nature for a further period of six moths and for offence under Section 323 RPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of similar nature for a period of one month. The sentences of imprisonment imposed were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
2. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this appeal, it would be necessary to first briefly notice the case of prosecution, as was put up before the trial Co
Bhaskarrao and others v. State of Maharashtra
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and trustworthy evidence in criminal cases, and the impact of material contradictions on the prosecution's case.
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists regarding a prosecution's case, it must favor the accused, leading to acquittal.
Insufficiency of evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.