Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAJIV GUPTA, PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Vishwa Nath Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident and injuries sustained. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. court identifies discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Para 37 , 39 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 3. appellants argue against conviction. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 4. doubt cast on prosecution's case and defendants' entitlement to benefit of doubt. (Para 64 , 67 , 68) |
| 5. court's final decision to acquit the appellants. (Para 73 , 74) |
judgment :
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 Mangoo Lal & appellant no. 5 Maqbool, Ms. Manju Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant no. 2 Bhai Lal, and Shri H.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
2. At the very outset, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant Nos. 1, Vishwa Nath Tewari, 4, Lallu, and 6, Jagatoo, have since died. Therefore, the appeal against them has already been abated vide order dated 17.02.2022. This appeal, therefore, survives and is being adjudicated only in respect of the three surviving appellants: appellant nos. 2 Bhai Lal, 3 Mangoo Lal, and 5 Maqbool.
3. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order
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 appellate court found the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the alleged dacoity.
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.
The court reinforced that identification evidence must meet rigorous standards, especially under poor visibility, to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction for dacoity was overturned due to significant evidentiary inconsistencies, including lack of reliable identification and failure to examine critical witnesses.
Eyewitness identification under low visibility is valid if witnesses are familiar with the accused, thereby satisfying the prosecution's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and corroborating evidence is essential. Non-examination of key witnesses, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in the evidence ca....
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
