Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, GARIMA PRASHAD
Jag Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals against conviction; abated for deceased. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. revenge assault with knives and firearms alleged. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. eyewitnesses describe assault but contradict on details. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. medical evidence proves fatal incised wounds. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. trial court convicts on eyewitness testimony. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. evidence unreliable: contradictions, no motive, lapses. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. injured witness and medical proof sufficient. (Para 28) |
| 8. death proved; participation and roles doubtful. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. unexplained targeting, omissions prejudice defense. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. doubt from infirmities benefits accused. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. surviving appellants acquitted with benefit of doubt. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Garmia Prashad, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kamlelsh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the surviving appellant No.2, namely, Nathhi in Criminal Appeal No.639 of 1984 and appearing as Amicus Curiae for appellant No.2, namely, Bharat in Criminal Appeal No.428 of 1984 and Ms. Manju Thakur, le
Acquittal justified where prosecution evidence suffers contradictions in eyewitness accounts, lack of corroboration for key allegations like firing, non-examination of Investigating Officer and docto....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the motive, presence of witnesses, and me....
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
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
