Back
RAJAN ROY, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jagdamba Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajan Roy, J.
1. Heard Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 4 in Government Appeal No. 1000325 of 2007. Mr. G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard in Criminal Appeal No. 1462 of 2007. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State have been heard in Criminal Revision No. 398 of 2007.
2. Respondent no. 3-Sant Ram has died in Government Appeal No.1000325 of 2007 and the appeal has abated as regards him so has Revision No.398 of 2007 in so far as it relates to him.
3. At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that out of the four accused, three, namely, Santram, Ramdev and Ramdas have been acquitted of the charge of murdering the deceased-Rajendra Kumar Verma and trying to destroy evidence punishable under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C. whereas the fourth accused, namely, Jagdamba Prasad has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. The State of U.P. has filed Government Appeal No.1000325 of 2007 against acquittal of the aforesaid
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court's power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction is limited as per Section 401(3) of Cr....
Point of Law : False implication of the accused persons including the appellant cannot be ruled out on account of long standing enmity between the parties.
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....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
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 court reaffirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt in murder cases under IPC Sections 147, 149, and 302.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Murder – When there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and same has been corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of weapon does not affect persecution case.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
