Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA
Ram Sujan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddharth,J.)
1. The above noted criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 passed by Special Judge, (Dacoity Affected Area) Act, Banda in Special Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2023, State vs. Anurag Mishra and Another; Special Sessions Trial No. 74/2023, State Vs. Ramji Vs. Another and Special Sessions Trial No. 76/2003, State Vs. Chhota @ Rajesh and Another, by which appellants have been convicted and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Appellants have been further convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. Prosecution case is that the informant, Chhedi Lal Dwivedi, lodged the F.I.R stating that on 22.01.2003 baarat of son of his brother-in-law (sadhu), Santosh @ Chota Gautam, had gone from District Banda to District Panna in Madhya Pradesh at the house of Vansh Pratap Pathak. On the next day i.e., 23.01.2023 at about 7 a.m the m
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
The conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
The reliability of eye-witness testimonies and the test identification parade in establishing the guilt of the accused.
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliability in evidence, including the identification of the accused, the medical evidence, and the procedure in recording the ....
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, is valid when corroborated by subsequent events and evidence, establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable do....
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
