RAMESH SINHA, VIVEK VARMA
Puttan alias Shiv Shanker – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
(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.)
1. Puttan, Ram Chandra and Lali alias Ram Shanker, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 480 of 1980 : State Vs. Puttan @ Shiv Shanker and Ram Chandra and Session Trial No. 336 of 1983 : State Vs. Lali alias Ram Shanker, respectively, arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 1980, under Sections 302 /34, 307/34 and 394 I.P.C. at police station Achalganj, District Unnao.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 22.09.1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 480 of 1980, the Sessions Judge, Unnao, acquitted the accused persons, Puttan alias Shiv Shanker and Ram Chandra, for the offence punishable under Section 307 /34 I.P.C., however, convicted and sentenced them in the manner as stated herein below :
ii. Under Section 394 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment of five years R.I..”
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Later on, vide judgment and order dated 16.03.1984 passed in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 1983, the Sessions Judge, Un
Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh
State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar
R. Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 1 SCC 48
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and doubt in evidence lead to acquittal.
The court established that direct eyewitness testimony is paramount in murder cases, and self-defense claims must be substantiated by credible evidence.
Conviction requires overt acts attributed to accused; acquittals followed evidentiary insufficiencies while some convictions were altered from section 149 to 34 due to lack of proof of unlawful assem....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration in criminal cases, and the reasonableness of delayed recording of police statements.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness statements and unreliability of witnesses can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The court established that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible and sufficient for conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absenc....
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.