Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI
Payar Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Court of Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class) Batote (for short “the trial court”) and judgment and order dated 14.06.2014 passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge Ramban (for short “the appellate court”)
2. The facts emerging from the record would reveal that a charge sheet came to be laid before the trial court against the petitioner herein being an accused therein for commission of offence under section 379 RPC, whereupon charges for commission of the said offence came to be framed against the petitioner herein by the trial court on 13.10.2009 to which, the petitioner did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, whereafter, the trial court proceeded with the trial of the case and in the process examined 06 prosecution witnesses out of 07 listed witnesses being PW-1 Lakhmir Singh (complainant), PW-2 Puran Singh, PW-3 Daulat Singh, PW-4 Dhian Singh, PW-5 Mohd. Yaseen and PW-6 Janayat Ali (Investigating Officer). After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial court, upon recording the statement of the petitioner herein u
Possession of stolen goods shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act requires corroborating evidence to establish the recovery of stolen property, necessitating scrutiny of witness credibility.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must establish every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, including common intention among co-accused, for a conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Revisional jurisdiction narrowly limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Related witness testimony reliable if credible. No need for independent witnesses in ....
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond 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
