SAROJ YADAV, RAMESH SINHA
Anil Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav, JJ.
(The judgment is pronounced in terms of Chapter VII Sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) (Per Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J. for the Bench)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the convict/appellant Anil Yadav, against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC IV, (Room No.13), Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2005, whereby the convict/appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of six months. The convict/appellant was also held guilty and sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 2005 whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of three months.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal shorn of unnecessary details are as under:
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar: (1996) 1 SCC 614
Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan
Mohd. Rojali Versus State of Assam: (2019) 19 SCC 567
Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
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....
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.