Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, N. S. SHEKHAWAT
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J.
By way of the present appeal, State of Haryana has challenged the judgment dated 22.01.2003, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby Vinod Singh, respondent and his four other co-accused were ordered to be acquitted by the Trial Court of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
2. The prosecution story, as it emerges from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, is that a V.T, message was received in Police Station City, Rohtak from Police Post PGIMS, Rohtak to the effect that Ravi son of Mahender Singh was brought dead and Lal Ji son of Dharam had been admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak in injured condition. On getting this information, ASI Ram Kumar along with other police officials reached PGIMS, Rohtak and recorded the statement of Anita wife of Ravinder Singh @ Ravi. In her statement, Anita stated that at about 10:00 P.M on 27.12.1999 she along with her husband, Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and her brother Sudesh Pal, were present in their house and were watching TV. The wire of the cable was passing through their house. Pappu, accused, who lived in their street had joined the connection of his television with their cable connection and due to this
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not int....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in cases of doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, unreliable recovery of the weapon, and a defective investigation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased sustained any firearm injuries, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Conviction under Section 307 IPC reversed due to hostile corroborative witness, inconsistencies between injured witness testimony and FIR, unexplained FIR delay despite prior police information, abse....
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
