Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Rahul Dev v. State - (High Court of Delhi) (31 May 2017)

Where primary witnesses itself are reliable, conviction can safely be based on testimony of said witnesses even in absence of corroboration from call records

MANU/DE/1565/2017

Criminal

By present appeal, Appellant challenges impugned judgment convicting him for offences punishable under Section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and order on sentence directing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. It is submitted that, Appellant has been falsely implicated, hence, he be acquitted of charges.

In a case of eye-witness, prosecution need to prove motive. However, from evidence of witnesses, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt motive for commission of offence against Appellant. Supreme Court in case of Kamla Kant Dubey v. State of U.P. held- that, it is settled principle that, a conviction can well be founded on testimony of a single witness, if Court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars.

Evidence of call records would have only been corroborative in nature and where primary witnesses itself are reliable, conviction can safely be based on testimony of said witnesses even in absence of corroboration from call detail records.

Evidence of witnesses (Seema, Umesh, Prakash, Ravi Kant Dubey and Rishabh) coupled with extra judicial confession of Appellant made to Umesh, human blood recovered from chest of Appellant at mid-night, coupled with recovery of amputated body of Diwakar, when he alone was present in house after Inspector reached third floor of premises which Appellant has failed to explain, prove case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In view of cogent and convincing evidence led by prosecution, there is no infirmity in impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Appeal is dismissed.

Relevant : Kamla Kant Dubey and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0694/2015

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved