Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Kalloo – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma,J.)
1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
2. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1983, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 624 of 1981, convicting and sentencing the appellant for charge under Section 396 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The factual matrix of the case pertaining to present Criminal Appeal in brief is that upon an incident having occurred in the mid night of 4/5.2.1981, a first information report was lodged on 5.2.1981 at 9:10 AM by the son of the deceased. Deceased was one Smt. Phoolmati and the first informant was her son Binda Prasad Mishra. Upon the first information report having been lodged, the police got into action. The Panchayatnama was prepared on 5.2.1981 itself and was exhibited as Ext.Ka-5 and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem report was exhibited as Ext.Ka-1. There were certain recoveries. The recovery of the ash which was there as a resul
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
(1) Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. Burden of proof of guilt of accused is upon prosecution. It must stand by itself. (2) Cr.P.C does not oblige investigati....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal proof beyond all shadow of doubt in a criminal trial and highlights that suspicion or claim of identification alone is not sufficient for conviction.
In a criminal trial, purpose of examining the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to give him an opportunity to explain allegations against him, to understand as to wheth....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliability in evidence, including the identification of the accused, the medical evidence, and the procedure in recording the ....
Identification parade compromised by prior exposure to witnesses renders conviction invalid.
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
