Back
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Vinay Kumar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
The present appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 16.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2010 holding appellant-Vinay Kumar Jaiswal guilty of offence under Section 302, 307 and 506 of IPC read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act. vide order of sentence dated 17.5.2012, the accused-appellant was awarded imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, under Section 506 of IPC, imprisonment for two years and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. It was directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It is worth noticing that the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 16.12.2022 had directed the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously. Paper book is complete and trial Court's record has been received.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for t
The judgment reinforces the principle that credible eyewitness testimony, supported by forensic evidence, can establish guilt in serious criminal offenses.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 and Arms Act Section 25 upheld due to credible direct witness testimony and supporting evidence, despite challenges to forensic integrity.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case.
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, to prove the guilt of the ....
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
