Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I
Mahesh Alias Munna Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant-Mahesh @ Munna Yadav against a judgment and order dated 27.06.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2014, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Bhelupur, district Varanasi, convicting and sentencing the appellant as under:-
(a) Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, two years additional imprisonment.
(b) Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, three months' additional imprisonment.
(c) Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 30 Arms Act.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. By the same judgment and order, the learned Judge acquitted co-accused Hari Shankar @ Yadavji and Sohan Yadav from the charges levelled against them.
Brief Facts
3. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that a written report was filed by Manoj Kumar Yadav, son of Bhola Yada
The conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Arms Act was upheld based on corroborative evidence and the significance of prompt FIR lodging, affirming established motive and forensic linkage.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of interested witnesses can be credible if corroborated by medical evidence.
Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negate....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
Prosecution must provide corroborative evidence, especially in firearm offences; mere accusations without substantiating proof cannot sustain a conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated and contradictory witness accounts render convictions unsafe.
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
