Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY
Babloo Dubey @ Vishnudhar Dubey
JUDGMENT :
1. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2023 is being treated as a leading case.
2. The validity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 13/17.2.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No.1 Gorakhpur, in Session Trial No.19 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Govind Yadav and another), Session Trial No. 290 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Rinku @ Rajiv Yadav and another), Session Trial No. 445 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Rajan Yadav), Session Trial No. 234 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Bablu Dubey @ Vishnudhar Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 463 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC, Session Trial No. 252 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Govind Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 519 of 2014, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act and Session Trial No. 253 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Suresh Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 520 of 2014, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Khorabad, District Gorakhpur whereby the appellants Govind Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Rinku @ Rajiv Yadav, Monu Yadav,
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
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.
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
