Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD
Dev Bahadur Yadav @ Matru Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Zafeer Ahmad, J.
1. Heard, Sri Dhananjay Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State. Perused the records.
2. The aforesaid jail appeal arises out of judgment and and order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pratapgarh in S.T. No. 248 of 2009 (State v. Dev Bahadur @ Matru Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2009, Police Station Antu, Sub-District Sadar, District Pratapgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) for life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/ and in case of non-payment of fine, an additional imprisonment of six months.
Prosecution Story in Nutshell:
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.03.2009, complainant Ram Bodh Yadav, s/o Sukhai Yadav, r/o village Shukulpur, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh submitted a written report stating therein that his daughter, Sunita, was married to Dev Bahadur @ Matru, s/o Nanda Yadav, r/o village Babu Ka Purwa Majra Umri, Police Station Antu, around fifteen years ago. On 27.03.2009 he received an information over telephone that his
It would always be open for prosecution to decide on quality and quantity of evidence that they wish to lead in order to establish charge and this Court cannot comment on such aspect of matter, as lo....
Motive is not essential for conviction in murder cases if direct and credible eyewitness testimony is present.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the sudd....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
Section 299 relates to causing death by doing an act with intention of causing death or with intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
The court clarified that mere teasing does not constitute grave provocation sufficient to reduce a murder charge under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
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
