Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR
Rahishe @Rahise – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P – Respondent
Judgment :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Rahishe @ Rahise, Chhikani, Bakuni all sons of Munesara and Nazir son of Mahadev, all residents of Village Kesaria, Police Station Saini, District Allahabad, against the judgment and order dated 21.03.1990, passed by the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Session Trial No.308 of 1986, under Section 302 /34 Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.), Police Station Kokhraj, District Allahabad.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, Rahishe @ Rahise, Chhikani, Bakuni and Nazir have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, this appeal has been filed by all the four convicts. During the pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant No. 1, 2 and 4, namely, Rahishe @ Rahise, Chhikani and Nazir, have died, and the appeal against them stands abated vide order dated 04.11.2025. Therefore, the appeal has been heard in respect of the surviving appellant, Bakuni alone.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Babani, son
The prosecution failed to establish a credible case of murder beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
A single reliable eyewitness testimony can sustain a murder conviction, irrespective of contradictions in other testimonies.
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.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing testimony from interested witnesses, considering the relevance of motive in establishing guilt, and disregarding minor discrepancies in witness tes....
The court established that a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the evidence forms a complete chain that leads to the only reasonable conclu....
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
