Back
RAJESH SEKHRI
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Davinder Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and prosecution's allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. issues with witness testimony and trial process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on evidence and witness examination. (Para 6 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. legal standards for witness credibility and testimonial evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final decision to uphold trial court's judgment. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Sekhri, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2013 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ('trial court' for short) vide which respondents have been acquitted.
2. The case set up by the prosecution in the trial court, in brief, is that PW-3, Santosh Kumari, mother of the prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a written report on 17.12.2004, stating therein that she along with her daughter were residing as tenant in the house of a police inspector namely Ajay Gupta at Link Load, Jammu. The prosecutrix used to make quilt covers in the shop of respondent no. 1 situate at Mast Garh. About 7/8 days back, respondent no. 1 asked her to drop the prosecutrix in his shop for night shift. The prosecutrix went to the shop of respondent no. 1, but was no
(1) Examination-in-chief of a witness cannot be taken into consideration to fasten any liability, unless opposite party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine said witness as regards i....
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
Testimony untested by cross-examination lacks probative value; continuation of criminal proceedings on such basis constitutes an abuse of process.
Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction Set aside - Benefit of Doubt - When the FIR of the incidence is belated and the delay is not explained properly, the FIR itself as also the case of the prosecution be....
Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
Point of Law : It is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to identify the accused or utilize expert assistance in interpreting gestures of a disabled victim creates reasonable doubt.
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
