Back
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Syed Waiz Mian, J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Lalit Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Singh and Jawahar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The aforementioned Criminal Appeal No. 6632 of 2019, Hakim vs. State, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura, in Session Trial No. 803 of 2013, State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr., arising Out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2013, under Sections-148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C., convicting the appellant U/s 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case of default of payment of fine further three months additional imprisonment and U/s 302 read with 149 I.P.C. sentencing them life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine further one year additional imprisonment and all the sentences were runs concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No. 5907 of 2019, Kishani vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the judgment
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 court emphasized that an anti-timed FIR and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.
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....
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
The testimonies of related witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when inconsistencies exist and the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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
