Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J.MUNIR, Sanjiv Kumar
Virendra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the criminal case (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant (Para 20 , 27 , 28 , 30) |
| 3. court's reflections on the prosecution evidence (Para 23 , 26 , 31) |
| 4. determining the reliability of witnesses and fir delay (Para 32 , 42 , 50 , 53) |
| 5. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant (Para 55 , 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Virendra, Onkar and Ajab Singh @ Bali, against the judgment and order dated 02.12.1987 passed by Mr. N.P. Verma, the then learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, in Sessions Trial No.61 of 1986, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.), Police Station Ahmad Garh, District Bulandshahar.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant Virandra has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The other appellants, Onkar and Ajab Singh @ Bali have been convicted and sentenced
In criminal law, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused; failure to provide timely evidence can undermine the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the established motive of caste rivalry.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
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
