Back
RATNAKER BHENGRA
Akhter Ansari, son of Yasin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Suchitra Pandey, the learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned APP.
2. The present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.04.2010 and the order of sentence dated 20.04.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Daltonganj, Palamau in Sessions Case No. 301 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for six years and a fine of Rs.2000/-under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine two months SI was awarded and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 21.12.2001 of the informant PW-1 Ali Hasan Ansari, is that on 20.12.2001 at 7:00 O'clock in the evening, informant along with his wife Sahida (PW-3) was sitting near stove and informant’s wife as cooking food. Suddenly appellant Akhter Ansari armed with gu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the nature of injuries, the intention of the appellant, and the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution in deter....
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The court emphasized that a single credible witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction, even with investigative lapses, provided it establishes the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of an injured eyewitness is highly credible and generally accepted unless compelling evidence to discredit it is presented, as upheld in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary value in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants were convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for causing hurt using firearms during an altercation, base....
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
