VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VIKAS BUDHWAR
State – Appellant
Versus
Durga Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal u/s 378 of code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) is made to the judgment and order dated 03.06.1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 211/1983 (State Vs. Durga Prasad and Others) u/s 147, 304/149, 323/149 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur acquitting the accused herein.
2. This appeal was initially filed while arraying as many as seven accused-respondents. However, the accused-respondents nos. 1, 2 and 4 during the pendency of the present appeal expired. Accordingly, the present appeal stood abated against the accused-respondents nos. 1, 2 and 4.
3. Factual matrix of the case so interwoven in the present appeal centres around with an allegation that a written report/complaint was submitted on 10.07.1982 by the first informant being Rajendra Prasad S/o Chandra Bhushan Prasad R/o Village Kewai, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur before the Police Station Ghazipur, District Fatehpur with an allegation that the accused herein who were seven in number at the time of the filing of the appeal had committed offences at 12 in the noon on 10.07.1982 when the first informant
Lakshmi Singh And Others Vs. State of Bihar
Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Jagjit Singh Alias Jagga Vs. State of Punjab
V.K. Mishra And Another Vs. State of Uttrakhand And Another
Sunil Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Sanjay Khanderao Wadane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal Pradesh
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.
Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons
Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police
Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala
K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.
N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.
The judgment established the principle that an appellate court must have substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony due to delays and contradictions cannot be sustained, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.
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.