Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ASHISH NAITHANI
Jalaluddin @ Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The instant appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 23.10.2019/04.11.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2016, State v. Jalaluddin @ Manoj, by the court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. PW 1 Ram Avtar Singh lodged a first information report on 26.09.2015 at 08:15 a.m. at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to it, on 22.09.2015, PW 2 Vijay Pal Singh (Home Guard) and PW 3 Khemkaran (Home Guard) along with other Home Guards were on security duty of Sugar Mill, Kashipur (“the Mill”). In the night at about 10:45 p.m., they noticed four miscreants roaming around the Mill. When PW 2 Vijay Pal Singh and PW 3 Khemkaran tried to stop the miscreants, they pushed them and ran away. Both PW 2 Vijay Pal Singh and PW 3 Khemkaran chased them, but in the process, one of the miscreants fired at PW 2 V
Conviction under Section 307 IPC reversed due to hostile corroborative witness, inconsistencies between injured witness testimony and FIR, unexplained FIR delay despite prior police information, abse....
The judgment emphasizes that errors in investigation do not necessarily impact the credibility of eyewitness evidence and that minor contradictions and lapses in investigation do not render the prose....
No one can be convicted without adequate incriminatory evidence.
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The judgment reinforces the principle that credible eyewitness testimony, supported by forensic evidence, can establish guilt in serious criminal offenses.
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
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.
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
