Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR
Arbind Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal by convicts against conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of incident and fir lodged. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the murder. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. expert testimony on cause of death. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. defense arguments challenging prosecution. (Para 19 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. trial court's conviction analysis and findings. (Para 21 , 27 , 30) |
| 7. discussion on motive and reliability of eyewitnesses. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. conclusion on acquittal of appellant due to insufficient evidence. (Para 53 , 54 , 56) |
| 9. final orders and procedural directives following judgment. (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ convicts Arbind Singh son of Bishwanath Singh and Bhola Nath Dubey son of Deo Narain Dubey, both residents of Village-Bhaiswar, Police Station-Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur, against the judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 passed by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Mirzapur in Session Trial No. 101 of 1983, State Vs. Arbind Singh and Another .
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appe
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....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - No one actually witnessed incident and FIR was lodged on basis of guess-work and suspicion and appellants have been implicated on account of suspicion becau....
Murder – Presence of rigor mortis by itself cannot be decisive of time of death – Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
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
