Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR
LAKHBIR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
State oF J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) The appellants have challenged judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.02.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Vide the impugned judgment the appellants have been convicted of offences under Section 307, 324, 34 RPC whereas appellants Lakhbir Singh @ Goga and Jasbir Singh @ Godah have also been convicted of offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act. In proof of offences under Section 307/34 RPC, each of the appellants has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ each, whereas in proof of offence under Section 323/34 RPC, they have been sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year. Appellants Jasbir Singh @Godah and Lakhbir Singh @Goga have also been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/ each for commission of offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act.
2) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 07.06.1998, complainant PW Jasbir Kour lodged a verbal report with Police Station, Satwari Jammu, alleging therein that on the said date when his son PW Surinder Singh, who is a truck driver, had come to his home, while her husband was away in connection w
Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case when corroborated by medical evidence, and probation benefits are not applicable for serious offences like attempted....
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....
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the accused's exercise of the right of private defence.
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
