Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
ABDUL MOIN, BABITA RANI
Kallu @ Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Babita Rani, J.
1. Heard Sri Kunwar Mukul Rakesh assisted by Sri Kunwar Sushant Prakash, Sri Harish Chandra, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. Smriti, learned counsels for the appellants, Sri Umesh Verma along with Sri G.D. Bhutt, learned Additional Government Advocates, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 84 of 2010, 2695 of 2009 and 212 of 2010 respectively.
2. This common judgment will dispose of the Crl. Appeal Nos. 2695 of 2009 in re: Chhatra Pal v. State of U.P., 84 of 2010 in re: Rajkumar @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and 212 of 2010 in re: Omkar v. State of U.P. which have been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Number 5, Unnao in trial number 181/2005, in re: State v. Chhatra Pal and others bearing crime number 1022/2004 wherein charges were framed under Sections 396 and 412 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao and whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and have been sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and two years simple imprisonment in case of non-payme
To convict under Section 396 IPC, prosecution must establish involvement of five or more persons in committing dacoity; failure to prove this essential requirement leads to acquittal.
Conviction for dacoity was overturned due to significant evidentiary inconsistencies, including lack of reliable identification and failure to examine critical witnesses.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to provide corroborative evidence and reliance on unreliable witness testimony undermines conviction under dacoity with murder.
Point of law: Court are conscious of the legal position that being part of a gang of dacoits, while the act of dacoity is on, is sufficient to make a member of that bunch of dacoits, present there, l....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal proof beyond all shadow of doubt in a criminal trial and highlights that suspicion or claim of identification alone is not sufficient for conviction.
The court reinforced that identification evidence must meet rigorous standards, especially under poor visibility, to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
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
