Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Hanif Ansari S/o Chakhwa Ansari @ Chan Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. These criminal revisions are directed against the Judgment dated 27th January, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 467, 468, 472, 414, 120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No.31 of 2009 (arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No.09 of 2009), had convicted the petitioners for committing the offences under Sections 467, 468, 472, 120B and 414 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2, 000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for three months each and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments of Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2016
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments submitted tha
The court upheld the conviction for forgery and conspiracy under IPC sections, emphasizing that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the petitioners' involvement in the crimes.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 413 of the IPC based on the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery memos, and established the appellant's habitual offender s....
(1) No material inconsistency in the testimony of the police officials.(2) Appellant’s defence that he had been falsely implicated is without any substance.
The central legal point established is that conscious possession of stolen articles and vehicles can lead to conviction under Section 411 of the IPC.
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
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
