Back
RAJIV GUPTA, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.
1. Present criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., has been preferred before this Court, on behalf of appellant, Sunil, challenging the judgement and order dated 29.11.2006, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bulandshahar, Sessions Trial No.972 of 2006 (State Versus Sunil) in Case Crime No.117 of 2006, u/s 452 and 449 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja, District Bulandshahar, wherein the accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and to serve out seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and six months’ additional simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as projected in F.I.R., undisputed facts and other material on record, is that
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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....
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
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 court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
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
