IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA
Dault Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-Ist, for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of this criminal appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 302 , 302/34, 323/34 of IPC, whereas appellant Daulat Ram and Makrand alias Mukandi have been convicted under Sections 307 /34, 307 and 323 IPC. Both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 , 302/34 IPC and 5 years RI for the charge under Section 307 /34 and 307 IPC respectively and 6 months RI for the charge under Section 302 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2014) 14 SCC 222 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is always not necessary to adjourn the matter in case both appellants or his counsels/lawyers are absent and the Court can decide the appeal on merits after perusal of the record and the judgement of the trial Court. It has further been observed that if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy th
Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka
Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam
In Re: Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing Of Criminal Appeals vs. State of U.P.
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs. The State of Punjab
Krishna Mochi and others vs. State of Bihar
Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab
Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat
State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa and others
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P.
Satbir Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
Jayabalan vs. U.T. of Pondicherry
Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry
Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. vs. State of Maharashtra
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.
Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P.
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka
Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra
The court affirmed that testimony from injured witnesses is highly credible, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case if corroborated by medical evidence.
Related witness testimony can be credible in criminal proceedings, and minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution case if the core narrative remains intact.
The court modified murder convictions under Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part-II/149 based on medical evidence attributing death to septicaemia from ante mortem injuries, highlighting the significa....
The credibility of witness testimonies in criminal trials requires careful scrutiny, particularly when they are related to victims, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The testimony of injured witnesses holds significant evidentiary value and can support a conviction for murder when corroborated by medical evidence, establishing intent beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
Witness testimony, particularly that of injured victims, holds significant weight in criminal cases, affirming convictions despite claims of investigative defects or witness bias.
Eyewitness testimony from relatives is admissible and credible if consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, regardless of their relationship to the victim.
The evidence of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and their testimony is generally reliable unless substantial contradictions are present. The court emphasized the importance of e....
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the prosecution failed to prove premeditation or undue advantage during a sudden fight.
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.