Back
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Lavkush – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.8.2017 and order of conviction dated 30.8.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Muzzafarnagar (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court') whereby the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2012 (State v. Lavkush and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 468/2011, has convicted Lavkush (appellant-accused) s/o late Bhagmal for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment and has ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It has further been provided that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. In Sessions Trial No. 280/2012 (State v. Lavkush) arising out of Case Crime No. 470/2011, under Section 25 of Arms Act, the Court sentenced the appellant to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to suffer additional imprisonment of three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment dated 28.8.2017, learned trial Court acquitted the other co-a
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. The list does not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" that would directly identify any case as having been overruled or rejected by subsequent rulings. Therefore, based on the provided information, no case can be definitively categorized as bad law.
1. Followed / Affirmed / Well-accepted Treatment:
Gulab VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2021 8 Supreme 714: The case discusses principles of witness credibility, common intention, and ballistic expert examination, which are standard legal principles that are generally accepted and followed in courts.
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581: Emphasizes principles of circumstantial evidence, voluntary confession, and legal procedures, reflecting standard judicial approach.
Gurcharan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 261: States the need for careful evidence consideration and clear recording of conclusions in confirmation cases, consistent with good judicial practice.
Sessions Judge, Nellore. Referring officer VS Intha Ramana Reddy - 1971 0 Supreme(AP) 21: Clarifies the constitutional right to counsel, aligning with established constitutional jurisprudence.
2. Clarifications / Explanations of Legal Principles:
Rahul VS State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs - 2022 8 Supreme 113: Explains that family members can receive compensation even if the accused is acquitted, and discusses extrajudicial confession and DNA evidence, which are clarificatory in nature.
Subramanya VS State Of Karnataka - 2023 1 Supreme 155: Discusses the principles of conviction and appeal, including the rarity of reversing acquittals and the cautious approach to evidence like discovery and extrajudicial confession.
Ram Singh VS State of U. P. - 2024 2 Supreme 529: Reinforces the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, a standard legal principle.
3. Specific Legal Interpretations and Procedural Aspects:
State Of Rajasthan VS Rajendra Singh - 1998 6 Supreme 116: Highlights the importance of reasons given by the High Court in acquittal, indicating adherence to proper appellate procedure.
State Of Punjab VS Jugraj Singh - 2002 1 Supreme 629: Describes the appellate review process where the Supreme Court can set aside an acquittal based on surmises if the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Pritinder Singh @ Lovely VS State of Punjab - 2023 5 Supreme 141: Reiterates the principle that suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction, aligning with standard criminal law.
Ram Singh VS State of U. P. - 2024 2 Supreme 529: Addresses evidentiary issues related to eyewitness testimony and ballistic evidence, reflecting accepted procedural standards.
None of the cases exhibit explicit treatment indicators such as being overruled or reversed, nor do they contain language suggesting they are considered bad law. However, the absence of explicit treatment or subsequent judicial commentary leaves some uncertainty regarding their current legal standing. Without additional context or subsequent case law references, their treatment remains presumed to be standard or unchallenged.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Reliability of evidence and witness credibility are crucial for criminal conviction; discrepancies in testimony and FIR registration can lead to acquittal.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
1) When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other.(2) In cases where injurie....
(1) Murder – In a situation when there is a group attack which lasted for only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect an eye-witness to recount each fact in mathematical detail.(2) Defective inv....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
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
