Back
Lot Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
(A) BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION
1. Four persons, namely, Sadhu Prasad, Talluqdar, Lot Prasad (the appellant), and Shital, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1992: State Vs. Sadhu Prasad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 1990, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ I.P.C. ”), Police Station Wazirganj, District Gonda.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 20.07.1995, the Sessions Judge, Gonda acquitted accused Sadhu Prasad, Talluqdar and Shital from the charge of murder levelled against them, however, convicted the accused/appellant Lot Prasad under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.1995, accused/appellant Lot Prasad has filed the instant appeal before this Hon’ble High Court.
3. The instant appeal then came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan and Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.J. (as they then were). After hearing of the instant appeal, vide separate judgment and order dated 09.08.2017, Hon’ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J (as he then wa
Point of Law : False implication of the accused persons including the appellant cannot be ruled out on account of long standing enmity between the parties.
Point of Law : Any outsider or stranger committing a crime of murder, in which event, identification of assailant becomes very critical and crucial but in light of evidences as brought on record, ide....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction is limited as per Section 401(3) of Cr....
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of an injured witness holds greater evidentiary value, and minor discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily render the evidence untrustworthy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide convincing and reliable evidence to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
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
