Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, SHREE PRAKASH SINGH
Surya Lal @Shiv Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. Heard Sri Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal, Advocate for the two appellants as Amicus appointed by the High Court and learned AGA for the State Respondents.
2. These two criminal appeals have been filed against judgement and order dated 07.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Session Trial No. 49 of 2002, State of U.P. Vs. Surya Lal and Another arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2001, Police Station, District Bahraich, where by the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which for further imprisonment of one year, and under Section 353 IPC for two years imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC for three years, imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and additional imprisonment of six months in case of default in payment.
3. Case Crime No. 69 of 2001 was initially registered in Police Station – Sujauli, Bahraich on 06.08.2001 at 06:10 AM against three accused, all residents of Ishwari Ganj Nepal, the informant did not reveal any names. He only indicated that one of them belonged to the family of Ramswaroop Tharu, the other was a relative of P
In criminal trials, a conviction based solely on eyewitness testimony requires corroboration, especially when evidence raises significant doubt about witness credibility.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony led to acquittal of appellants.
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on trustworthy and reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses, despite their relationship to the deceased, to establish the guilt of ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and reliance on unreliable witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
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.
THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES IS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 ....
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
