eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

MGSCTI MORENA ADDMISION OPEN FOR SHORTHAND AND CPCT MOB-7470639002 (MP HIGH COURT AG-3 ENGLISH TYPING DIC 11/01/2019)

created Jan 11th, 11:33 by sheetal kirar


0


Rating

351 words
25 completed
00:00
Section 395 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 27 and 114 Robbery Conviction and sentence Sustainability of Incident of robbery alleged to have been taken place with various victims Victims P.W. 4 and Mohan sustained various injuries during incident However, allegation against appellant made that he robbed a two celled torch from P.W. 5 But not alleged that P.Ws sustained any injury Medical report of P.W. 5 not proved before trial court It is for prosecution to prove that appellant was also a culprit who participated in robbery P.W. 4 lodged  named F.I.R. in which appellant mentioned as accused No. 4 Incident took place at about 12 in night and witnesses not informed about source of light P.W. 4 could not identify any of accused P.W. 2 stated that watch shown in court not of himself P.W. 5 stated that he was not in position to give detailed information as to who assaulted him and who held him Evidence of P.W. 5 indicates that separate robbery committed with him Therefore, it was for him to mention specifically that out of all culprits who robbed his torch having two cells But P.W. 5 not said specifically against appellant that he robbed his torch or he could not locate actual culprit Names of various culprits mentioned In F.I.R. on basis of suspicion otherwise specific overt act of appellant So far as recovery of would have been shown by victim in his statement before court Hence, F.I.R. loses its identify value against appellant So far as recovery of alleged torch concerned, no specific identification mark shown by P.W. 5 to claim that recovered torch was of his own Thus, could not be proved beyond  doubt that allegedly  recovered torch from appellant robbed property Held, trial court committed error in convicting appellant when not proved that any robbed property recovered from appellant nor he was properly identified by P.W. 5 Then appellant could not be convicted for offence charged Appellant acquitted. Sections 393, 395 and 398 See Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439. Section 384/34 See code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438.

saving score / loading statistics ...