Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, VIKAS BUDHWAR
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. As these four appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura, they are being heard together and are being decided by a composite order.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 6632 of 2019, 6501/2019 and 3104 of 2019 and Jail Appeal No.151 of 2019 are against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura in Sessions Trial nos. 803/2013 and 344/2014, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC awarding imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-and a default sentence of one year three months.
FACTS
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.01.2013, Bacchu Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Report in the Police Station-Refinery, Mathura against the appellants and one Ravi son of Kishani alleging that on 06.01.2013, when his brother Suresh Chandra had gone in the morning hours to answer the nature’s call, he was followed by the PW-1 Bacchu Singh, brother of the deceased, Vikram (PW-2) son of the deceased and Lauki, the father of the deceased and when the deceased reached the a
The court emphasized that an anti-timed FIR and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions and procedural irregularities in the FIR undermine the conviction.
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 ....
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
Point of Law : While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evide....
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
Prosecution must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and an ante-timed FIR raise significant doubts undermining the overall credibility of the prosecution case.
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness testimony is contradicted and evidence is lacking.
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
