IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SUJOY PAUL, VIVEK JAIN
Surajpal S/o Raghuvar Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK JAIN, J.
1. This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.189/2011, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that a Dehati nalish (Ex.P/1) was lodged on 20.03.2011 at 9:20 PM by Kamlesh (Pw-1). In the said Dehati nalish it was mentioned that on 20.03.2011 at about 9:00 PM, the complainant Kamlesh along with his younger brother Ramnarayaran and nephew Vinod were sitting on roof of their house and at that time the present appellant Surajpal fired one gun shot which hit Ramnarayan (deceased) in upper part of waiste (right side of lower che
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
: : (1) Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused. (2) Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead t....
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased sustained any firearm injuries, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.