Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Prakash Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)
Prelude
(1) Two accused persons, namely, Vijay Prakash Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 579 of 2005 : State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Prakash Sharma and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2005, under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, referred hereinafter as ‘I.P.C.’), Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.
(2) Vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2022, the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Lucknow, convicted both accused persons, Vijay Prakash Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2022, sentenced them under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. to be hanged to death till they are dead and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional two months’ imprisonment, however, both accused persons were acquitted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. It was also directed that on payment of the aforesaid fine by the accused persons, Rs.8,00,000/- would be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Kapil Gupta as compensation in terms of Section 357 of
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non to convict the accused when there is direct evidence in the form of eye witnesses.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
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
