SANJAY VASHISTH
Narender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Vashisth, J. - By way of present appeal, appellant - Narender Singh s/o Balu Ram, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2004, passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar (in short, 'Ld. Trial Court'), in Sessions Case No.08 of 2002, dated 05.03.2002, arising from FIR No.313, dated 21.11.2001, under Sections 307 of IPC & 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar.
2. Accused-appellant was held guilty for commission of offences
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and
was ordered to undergo sentence(s), as detailed in the following table:
Name of Convict | Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In Default |
Narender Singh | 307 IPC | 03 years RI | Rs.5000/- | 03 months SI |
|
| 25 of Arms Act | 01 year RI | Rs. 1000/- | 01 month SI |
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused appellant, if any, was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence.
3. Case framed up by the prosecution is that on 21.11.2022, a medical ruqa along with MLR of injured Bansi Lal s/o Bal Mukund was received in the Police Station Adampur. SI/SHO Perhalad Singh
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
Point of Law : Obviously, enmity was existing between both the sides and some altercation is stated to have taken place which has been trid to be coloured differently by the prosecution witnesses.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
A conviction for murder cannot be sustained solely on expert testimony without corroborative evidence, especially when eyewitnesses contradict the prosecution's case.
Prosecution must provide corroborative evidence, especially in firearm offences; mere accusations without substantiating proof cannot sustain a conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the court must carefully consider the credibility of evidence and the causative link between the accused and the alleged incident....
Prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.