Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep and Others – Respondents
Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2022, Criminal Appeal Nos. 189, 196, 229 of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of preliminary proceedings and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. fact details of prosecution and defense witnesses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's reassurance on evidence proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. summation of arguments from amicus curiae. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. state's argument position on chance witness credibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. evaluation of testimonies from witnesses. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. discussion of evidentiary reliability and witness examination. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. grounding of post-mortem findings in the trial context. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. examination of the conduct and recovery of tools. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. judicial standard of proof requirements articulated. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. deconstructing arguments on witness validity. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 12. addressing the doubts raised on witness presence. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 13. assessment of key witness reliability. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 14. detailed judgments on witness integrity. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 15. analysis of appeal against the factual matrix. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 16. clarifying aspects surrounding eyewitness account. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 17. reviewing cross-witness examinations and responses. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 18. final judgement on the baseline incident facts. (Para 79 , 80) |
| 19. ruling on applicability of forensic evidence. (Para 81 , 82) |
| 20. discussing evidentiary presentation failures. (Para 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 21. summary evaluation of circumstantial arguments. (Para 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 22. revisiting the elevation of capital punishment implications. (Para 89 , 90) |
| 23. humane consideration parameters for punishment setting. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 24. legality of honour killings contextualized. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100) |
| 25. compiling and cross-examining mitigating elements. (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106) |
| 26. court's final decisions on appeals and sentencing. (Para 107 , 108) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and reference, same are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. In Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2018, State Vs. Kuldeep and Others , by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2022, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, the appellants Kuldeep, Arun and Rahul have been convicted under Sections 302 , 120B, 506 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:
(i) Under Section 302 IPC- Death sentence with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine four years additional rigorous imprisonment.
(ii) Under Section 120B IPC- Death sentence with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine four years additional rigorous imprisonment.
(iii) Under Section 506 IPC- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2022 has been instituted under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for confirmation of death sentence as awarded to the appellants Kuldeep, Arun and Rahul.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant Rahul against his conviction and sentence.
5. Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant Arun against his conviction and sentence.
6. Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant Kuldeep against his conviction and sentence.
FACTS
7. Prosecution story, briefly stated is as follows:
(i) PW1 Brij Mohan, the informant of the case and the deceased Preeti were in romantic relationship. In the month of December, 2014, they both married against the wishes of the parental family of the deceased. The family members of the deceased Preeti were not happy with the said marriage. It was a court marriage also. After t
AI
The court established that circumstantial evidence and motive for honour killing justified the conviction for murder, while mitigating factors led to the commutation of the death penalty to life impr....
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
Point of law: Convict/appellant is a menace to the society and there is no chance of his rehabilitation or reformation and no leniency in imposing punishment is called for.
The court emphasized that eyewitness testimony, even from relatives, must be thoroughly examined without automatic dismissal, impacting convictions and resultant penalties in murder cases related to ....
The death penalty can be commuted to life imprisonment if mitigating factors outweigh aggravating circumstances, particularly demonstrating lack of premeditation or extreme brutality in the crime.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court held the convictions for murder under Sections 302 and 149 IPC were upheld, asserting that while the prosecution's evidence was lacking in parts, the credible testimony established involvem....
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
