Typing Practice Passage for Allahabad High Court, APS Skill Test, ARO Skill Test:
Sample: 4
(2021)01ILR A1
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON’BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Jail Appeal No. 352 of 2018
Ram Das ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opposite PartyCounsel for the Appellant: From Jail, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, Sri Bhishm Pal Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A.
Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 154- The first informant Shamshuddin is not an eye witness to the incident. He has categorically stated that the information about the incident has been received by at his house through Naeemuddin PW-1. Naeemuddin PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The person whose name surfaced later on as an eye witness is Faizuddin PW-4 - In the application of Shamshuddin, there is no reference of Faizuddin being an eye witness to the incident.The sole eye witness Faizuddin PW-4 after the other eye witness Naeemuddin PW-1 has been declared hostile is a chance witness and an interested witness as being the youngest brother of the first informant and the deceased. The evidence of the only eye witness being Faizuddin PW-4 does not inspire confidence. In so far as the fact that the deceased had given an oral dying declaration to Shamshuddin PW-3 whereby he had described the entire incident and detailed about it to him also does not appear to be true and trustworthy as the deceased while in an injured condition was in an unconscious state. There is no evidence or document on record showing his condition contrary to that. Thus, telling Shamshuddin PW-3 of the version of the occurrence as stated by Shahjuddin is a concoction.
It is settled law that although the Court can secure the conviction of the accused on the basis of the evidence of a solitary witness, but where the evidence of such solitary witness is false and concocted on the face of it and fails to inspire the confidence of the Court, then conviction of the accused cannot be secured on the basis of such untrustworthy evidence. (Para 45, 50, 52)
Criminal Appeal Allowed. (E-2)
(Delivered by Hon’ble Samit Gopal, J.)
[Delivered by Samit Gopal, J. for the Bench under Chapter VII Rule 1 (2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952]1. The present appeal has been preferred from jail by the appellant Ram Das against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kannauj, in Sessions Trial No. 428 of 2008 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Ashrey) which was connected with Sessions Trial No. 445 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Das) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Life imprisonment and fine ofRs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo two years imprisonment. 478 Words
Sample: 5
(2021)01ILR A940
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL SIDE)
DATED: New Delhi 18.12.2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Appl. No. 46384 of 2020
Shubham Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, Sri Chandra Pratap Singh
Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A.
A. Criminal Law - The Arms Act,1959-Section 4/25 - Application-grant of bail-accused falsely implicated-no criminal antecedent- recovered material planted by
1 All. Shubham Mishra Vs. State of U.P. 941
the police-Police made false recovery in order to save real accused.(Para 2 to 6)
The bail application is allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2018) 3 SCC 222
(Delivered by Hon’ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.205 of 2020, under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Khataund, District Jalaun.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned learned counsel for the applicant further summits that the recovered material has been planted by the police which would have been recovered from other accused and had been shown to have been recovered from the applicant in order to save the real accused for the reason known to them. He submits that the applicant is not connected with offence alleged and in the alleged place of occurrence no raid or recovery was made and the police has falsely implicated the applicant showing false raid and recovery. The applicant is innocent and law abiding person and is not involved in the case and the police has falsely implicated him in this case. He submits that no such incident had ever happened.
4. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 3.9.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 450 Words
0 Comments