IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, JJ.
Mayank Parasari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has arisen from the judgement and order dated 16.09.2022 passed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Special Judge SC/ST (P&A) Act, Rampur, in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2011, State vs. Mayank Parasari whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprison for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of two years; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months further simple imprisonment. In Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2011, State vs. Mayank Parasari, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1) Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959.
2. According to the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR lodged by Geeta Devi (P.W.-1 at the trial), on 21.08.2010 at about 6:00 PM


The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to confront key witnesses undermines the credibility of its narrative.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of confronting witnesses with their previous statements to ensure a fair trial, as mandated by Section 145 of the Evidence Act a....
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of thoroughly analyzing witness testimonies, considering contradictions, and ensuring strict compliance with the law in using police statements for contradictio....
(1) Every contradiction or omission is not a ground to discredit witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony.(2) Theory of last seen together is helpful to prosecution if deceased was seen in company ....
It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose of impeaching credibil....
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The use of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as evidence is limited to corroboration or contradiction, and in the absence of substantial evidence, such statements cannot sustain a convict....
Conviction cannot be based only on the ground that the alleged accused has absconded.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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.