Kamla Kant Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Others
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Murder - Acquittal set aside - Appreciation of evidence - Murder - Sole eyewitness - Testimony of - Motive - Testimony of PW1 held to be completely trustworthy - Out of three infirmities found by the High Court, one regarding place of occurrence held to be not correct at all - First information report need not contain every single detail and every part of the case of the prosecution - However, assuming them to be improvements, the basic substratum of the matter does not get affected by such improvements at all - Even after segregating the part which appears to be introduced as improvement, the testimony of PW1 is clear and creditworthy - There was strong motive for the respondents to commit the murder in question is also clear from the record and the trial court had accepted that the respondents had strong motive to commit the crime - The finding as regards motive has not even been touched by the High Court -The view which weighed with the High Court in acquitting the accused cannot be termed as a possible view in the matter PW1 is a natural witness whose presence at the time and place of incident is established and is worthy of acceptance - In the original reporting PW1 had attributed lalkara to respondent 'B' alone while the tractor was being driven by respondent 'O', which meant that the other two accused, though sitting on the tractor were not attributed any overt act - Benefit of doubt given to the other two accused, namely, 'L' and 'G' - Acquittal of 'B' and 'O' set aside and e the order of conviction as recorded against them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC restored -Do not deem it appropriate to restore the sentence of death and the appropriate sentence in the matter ought to be sentence for imprisonment for life.
abortion clinics in orange county
ru486 what happens after an abortion
Topic(s)-Murder - Acquittal Set Aside - Conviction