IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN
Annu Khatik – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned Amicus for appellant-Chunni Lal and Raj Kumar Yadav, who have been released from the prison after remission has been granted to them in Criminal Appeal Nos. 351 of 2005 and 532 of 2005, Shri Chandra Shekher Pandey for appellant-Sanjay Yadav in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005 and Shri Bipin Kumar Rai for appellant-Annu Khatik and Shri A.A. Zaidi for appellant-Munna Khatik in Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2005 and Shri Prabhat Adhaulia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. All these appeals have been preferred by the convict appellants against the same impugned judgment and order and thus for the sake of convenience all these three appeals are being disposed off by this common judgment.
3. These criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants-Annu Khatik, Munna Khatik and Chunnilal in Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2005, appellant-Raj Kumar Yadav in Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2005 appellant-Sanjay Yadav in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2005 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Faizabad convicting and sentencing the ap
Appabhai and others v. State of Gujarat
Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab
Baljinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Bhagaloo Lodh and another v. State of U.P. AIR 2011 SC 2292
Bhagaloo Lodh and others v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0700/2011
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Chakali Maddilety and others v. State of A.P. AIR 2010 SC 3473
Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan
Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Dhari and others v. State of U.P. AIR 2013 SC 308
Dharnidhar and others v. State of U.P. and others
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others
Guli Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ishwar Singh and others v. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 2423
Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 2423
Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry
Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra
Lakhsmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar
Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi)
M.C. Ali and another v. State of Kerala
Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mahendran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Mannam Venkatadari v. State of A.P. (1971) 3 SCC 254 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1971 SC 1467
Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala
Molu and others v. State of Haryana
Myladimmal Surendran and others v. State of Kerala
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2020) 12 SCC 467 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 162
Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P. (1992) 1 SCC 49 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 20 : AIR 1991 SC 2214
Nisar Alli v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 366
Pala Singh and another v. State of Punjab
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police
Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of Maharashtra
Pudhu Raja and another v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. AIR 2010 SC 917
Ram Tahal v. State of U.P. (1972) 1 SCC 136 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 80 : AIR 1972 SC 254
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Ravinder Kumar and another v. State of Punjab
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. AIR 2004 SC 5039
Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Shyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 751
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another
Sucha Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v. State of Punjab
Surendra Pal and others v. State of U.P. and another
Tehsildar Singh and another v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
The court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Criminal Law - Common Intention - Liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act....
Convictions can be based on a sole eyewitness's testimony if credible; however, significant contradictions can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly regarding common intention under Section ....
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be established through evidence of participation in the crime, even without prior planning, as demonstrated by the credible testimony of an eyewitness.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.