Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD
Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals clubbed from common conviction judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. fir details family enmity massacre. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. investigation arrests recoveries charge-sheet filed. (Para 6 , 13) |
| 4. postmortems confirm gunshot axe injuries. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. trial proceedings convictions appeals abated. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. defense challenges eyewitness contradictions recoveries. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 29) |
| 7. state defends ocular evidence reliability. (Para 30) |
| 8. trial court errors benefit doubt acquittal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 9. complainant guddu testimony inconsistent doubtful presence. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. pw1 agana evidence implausible contradictory. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. injured pw3 arvind testimony unreliable. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 12. related injured witnesses need scrutiny contradictions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
(1) Heard Shri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2005, Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
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 ....
The court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing testimony from interested witnesses, considering the relevance of motive in establishing guilt, and disregarding minor discrepancies in witness tes....
Point of law: In the absence of such finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object.
Eyewitness testimony, even from related witnesses, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by cohesive evidence; procedural lapses in FIR handling do not necessarily vitiate a trial.
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses, before their acceptance must be tested on established parameters of appreciation of evidence.(2) Appreciation of evidence – Positi....
The court upheld the conviction of the surviving appellants based on reliable ocular evidence from injured witnesses, emphasizing the special status of such testimony in criminal cases.
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent witness testimony, and acquittal appeals require high scrutiny, with previous enmity not negating witness credibility.
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
