Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Lohar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vivekanand Rai, learned counsel for the surviving appellant no.3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.05.1984 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 272 of 1983 whereby the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment, six months further imprisonment. They were further convicted and sentenced under Section 452 IPC and were directed to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 323/34 lPC and they were directed to undergo six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the appellants no.1 and 2 have died and their appeal was abated on 23.10.2019. The appellant no.4 has also died and his appeal was also abated vide order 28.08.2025. Thus the
The failure of prosecution to explain injuries on the accused leads to a reasonable doubt about their culpability, justifying acquittal.
The prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused undermined the credibility of its case, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants under the benefit of doubt.
Prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused undermines its credibility, justifying the acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intent to cause death, not necessarily severe injuries; intent can be inferred from circumstances and actions during the incident.
The prosecution's failure to explain the serious injuries on the accused undermined its case, leading to doubt about the narrative presented.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
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
