Back
RAJIV GUPTA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Pal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri J.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State/ appellant, Shri Ravi Pandey, holding brief of Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record.
2. The instant government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.1984 passed by Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1983 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Yad Ram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 96 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sasani, District Aligarh, by which the accused-respondents have been acquitted for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. During the pendency of the said government appeal, accused-respondent no. 2 Hira Lal has already passed away on 06.03.2005 and as such, the instant government appeal qua accused-respondent no. 2 Hira Lal has been abated and now, it survives only for accused-respondent no. 1 Chandra Pal.
4. The prosecution story as unfurled in the FIR is that a litigation regarding partition of land was pending between the first informant Lala Ram, Raghubir and Ram Prasad, on one hand and Chandra Pal, Hira Lal, Yad Ram and Babu, on the
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and an acquittal can only be overturned if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
In criminal law, the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in murder cases where intent and knowledge are critical elements.
Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be established through evidence of participation in the crime, even without prior planning, as demonstrated by the credible testimony of an eyewitness.
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....
An appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, presumption of innocence is available to him under fundamental principle of ....
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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
