Back
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN
Gulam Rashul – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Syed Waiz Mian, J.
1. This Jail Appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant/accused, Gulam Rashul, through Senior Superintendent of Jail, Agra, against judgment and order dated 30.06.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 576 of 2004, relating to Case Crime No. 37 of 2004, under Sections-302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Muradnagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby, accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in the event of default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo six months imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in the event of default in payment of fine he has to further undergo one month imprisonment. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Shri Abhinav Jaiswal, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant/accused and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution story unfolds as under:
4. One Anand Singh-in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the application of the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to establish ....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of conviction if found to be reliable, and medical evidence should be carefully considered in determining the timing of events.
The judgment establishes that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without corroborative evidence, especially when there are significant inconsistencies in witn....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
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
