Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, AJAY KUMAR II
Mewati Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the appeal is based on claims of wrongful acquittal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments presented by the defence. (Para 12 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and testimonies. (Para 13 , 15 , 50) |
| 5. legal standards for reversing an acquittal. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. assessment of witness credibility and testimonies. (Para 34 , 39 , 44 , 49) |
| 7. final conclusion on the appeal. (Para 51) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment dated 30.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2012 ( State vs. Ram Karan Yadav and others ), Sessions Trial No. 491 of 2014 ( State vs. Jai Prakash @ Prakash Yadav and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 376 of 2011, under Sections 302/149, 147 IPC, Police Station Raunapar, District Azamgarh and Session Trial No. 29 of 2012 ( State vs. Vijai Yadav ), arising out of Case Crime No. 515 of 2011, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Raunapar, District Azamgarh, whereby the ac
Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness testimonies deemed unreliable and contradictory.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The acquittal of the accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt amidst significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
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
