Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Sangeeta Chandra, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
Shera – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. These are two criminal appeals challenging judgement and order dated 20.07.2001 passed by the Vth Additional District and Session Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1998, State of U.P. Vs. Chhote Lal and Others convicting the appellant Lakhan in the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘ IPC ’) and awarding a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of which an additional simple imprisonment of six months, and the Shera under Section 307 IPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and awarding a rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of which an additional simple imprisonment of two months.
2. The prosecution story in short is that one Kesh Kumar S/o Reoti Pasi, R/o Madharmau, Police Station - Gosaiganj, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report on 09.10.1997 at Police Station - Gosaiganj in Case Crime No. 383 of 1997, 11:50 PM against the appellant, Shera S/o Prahlad, and Lakhan S/o Chhote Lal and Prahlad S/o Fatte, Chhote Lal S/o Dukkha, all resident of village Madharmau, alleging there in that one Punarvasi S/o Chhote Lal, was murdered some four months a
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and reliance on unreliable witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable witnesses, lack of a source of light, doubts about the place of occurrence, and lapses in the invest....
In criminal trials, a conviction based solely on eyewitness testimony requires corroboration, especially when evidence raises significant doubt about witness credibility.
(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....
The court emphasized the necessity of consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, finding significant discrepancies that undermined the prosecution's case.
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
