Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY
Ajai Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.
1. The trial of the accused persons-Ajaypal, Ahlakar, and Awdhesh was conducted jointly under Sessions Trial Nos. 28 of 2003 and 28-B of 2003 and the trial of the accused Pawan was conducted under Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2003, in connection with Case Crime No. 86 of 2002 under Sections 364-A, 302, and 201 IPC. Additionally, separate trials were conducted for the accused Awdhesh under Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 109/02, under Section 25 Arms Act), and for the accused Ajaypal under Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2003, Case Crime No. 125 of 2002, under Section 25 Arms. Act); these proceedings were based on the charge sheets submitted to the court by the police of Police Station Deoria Kalan, District Pilibhit. Since all the above cases are related to the same prosecution and the entire prosecution evidence has been presented by the prosecution in the case file pertaining to Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2003, (State vs Jugendra Singh & Ors).
2. Vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pilibhit, the charges levelled against accused persons Ahalkar, Awadhjesh Gujar and Pawan Kumar U/s 36
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime, and any reliance on unreliability of recovery evidence warrants the benef....
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
