Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR
Devendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri I. K. Mishra and Sri Sachidanand Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 1 and 3 respectively and Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate (here-in-after referred as AGA).
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants namely Devendra Singh, Sripal Singh, Suresh Singh, Dinesh Singh and Yogendra Singh. During pendency of this appeal, Shripal Singh, Dinesh Singh and Yogendra Singh have died, therefore, this appeal has abated on their behalf on different dates. Now this appeal survives only on behalf of the appellant no. 1-Devendra Singh son of Indrapal Singh and appellant no. 3-Suresh Singh son of Hari Bux Singh.
3. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 7/11-1-1993 passed in S.T. No. 387 of 1991; State Versus Devendra Singh and 4 Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 66/1990 under Sections 395 /397 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (here-in-after referred as IPC), Police Station Behtagokul, District Hardoi by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, by means of which the appellant nos. 1 and 5 namely,
For conviction under dacoity, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt with corroborative evidence; mere identity of accused is insufficient without direct involvement in the crime.
To convict under Section 396 IPC, prosecution must establish involvement of five or more persons in committing dacoity; failure to prove this essential requirement leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimonies, along with the absence of corroborative evidence, can lead to an acquitta....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to provide corroborative evidence and reliance on unreliable witness testimony undermines conviction under dacoity with murder.
The conviction under IPC Sections 395 and 397 was overturned due to insufficient evidence for identification and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
1. The term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellate review requires solid evidence to uphold conviction, especially regarding armed dacoity and trespass.
The actual user of a deadly weapon during a robbery is solely liable under Section 397 IPC, while others involved may face lesser charges if not directly implicated.
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
