top of page

Contradictions in ballistic report & credible evidence of witness can't result in rejecting evidence

In the present appeal, the court has re – appreciated the entire evidence on record, more particularly the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW5. The witnesses were thoroughly cross examined and found they are trustworthy and reliable. The ballistic report shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW1 & PW2. Injuries on different parts of the body which show the intention and conduct on the part of the accused A2 & A3. The presence and participation have been established and proved by the prosecution by examining PW1 & PW2 are found to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The prosecution has been successful in proving the motive.

RAKESH AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Criminal Appeal No. 556 Of 2021

July 06, 2021


The Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah has decided the present case. In this case, the accused 1 - Rakesh has used country made pistol and caused injuries to the deceased and accused 2 & accused 3 – Suresh and Anish they assaulted the deceased with their respective knives. The case relied upon the eye witnesses and medical evidence. The learned trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment and also under the Arms Act. The accused being aggrieved by the decision preferred an appeal in High Court and the court has dismissed the appeal. The High Court has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the conviction of the accused. The accused 1 & 3 being aggrieved by the decision has preferred the present appeal.


The appellant has preferred the present appeal stating the learned trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in convicting the accused, relying upon the depositions of PW1 and PW2. The appellants have already undergone more than 15 years of sentence. The appellant prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court.


The respondent has submitted the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned trial court convicting the accused, relying upon the depositions of PW1 & PW2 are trustworthy and reliable witness. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted the accused and the same has been rightly confirmed by the High Court. It further submitted that the recovery of weapons used by the accused has been established and proved. The respondents submitted that there is no interference in the conviction of the accused.


In the present appeal, the court has re – appreciated the entire evidence on record, more particularly the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW5. The witnesses were thoroughly cross examined and found they are trustworthy and reliable. The ballistic report shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW1 & PW2. Injuries on different parts of the body which show the intention and conduct on the part of the accused A2 & A3. The presence and participation have been established and proved by the prosecution by examining PW1 & PW2 are found to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The prosecution has been successful in proving the motive.


The learned trial Court and the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. The appeal is said to be dismissed.



Shantha Gopika R

コメント


Articles

bottom of page