ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Ajai Mishra @ Taini – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
(A) Introduction
1. Both the State and the de-facto Complainant are before this court challenging the order of acquittal of all the four accused/ respondents by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 518/2001, under section 302, 302/34 IPC, wherein the Trial Court, while acquitting these accused persons of all the charges concluded vide an order dated 29.03.2004, as inter-alia:
While the state has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2004 under section 378 of the Criminal procedure Code, the de-facto complain
Arjun and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Balu Sonba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra
Balakrushna Swain vs. State of Orrisa
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana
Balaka Singh vs. State of Punjab
C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
Golbar Hussain and Others vs. State of Assam and Another
Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab
Harbeer Singh and Another vs. Sheeshpal and Others
Janak Singh vs. State of U.P. (1973) 3 SCC 50
Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Khujji vs. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627
Khachar Dipu alias Dilipbhai Nakubhai vs. State of Gujarat
Krishnegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Masalti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra
Mrinal Das and Others vs. State of Tripura
N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Noor Khan vs. State of Rajasthan
Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand
Rajendra vs. State of U.P. (2009) 13 SCC 480
Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa
Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 661
Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh
State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra
State of Orrisa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda
Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab
Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka
State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram
State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani
Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
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....
Point of law: Offence of Murder – Chain of circumstances proved – Common intention – Conviction justified.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
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.