Back
KULDEEP TIWARI
Amandeep @ Kalu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. Through the present appeal, the appellant-accused has challenged the verdict of conviction, and, order of sentence dated 25.01.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in case FIR No.55 of 29.10.2013, registered under Sections 392, 328, 379 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), at Police Station G.R.P. Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, whereby, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC, and, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The prosecution story unfolds from the statement, Ex.P2, of Udaharn Dass (PW2) (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), as recorded by A.S.I., Shish Pal (Investigation Officer/PW10), on 29.10.2013, at about 15:30 hours, while being present at Platform No.01, Railway Station, Kurukshetra. The relevant extract of statement, Ex.P2, is extracted hereunder:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the need for concrete evidence and consistency in the c....
Conviction under Section 328 of the IPC requires corroborative medical evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
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
