KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and context of the appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the incident and medical examination (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. witness testimonies and their credibility (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and contradictions (Para 18 , 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 5. arguments by the defense and prosecution (Para 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 6. court observations regarding the reliability and contradictions in witness statements. (Para 26) |
| 7. legal standards for relying on witness testimony (Para 28 , 29 , 31) |
| 8. final judgment and acquittal of the accused (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
1. Heard Shri Vimal Kishor Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mamta Pandey and Shri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant, Rajesh, challenging the judgment and order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court no.3, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 414 of 2001: State of U.P. vs. Rajesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2000, under Sections 452 /307 INDIAN P
Bijoy Singh vs. State of Bihar :(2002) 9 SCC 147
Laxman Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Rupchand Cindu Kathewar vs. State of Maharashtra: (2009) 17 SCC 37
The prosecution's case failed due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, leading to reasonable doubt, thus necessitating acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies and investigative delays can undermine its credibility.
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....
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural delays can undermine the case.
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 ....
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....
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.