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

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

PW1 and PW2 were found to be reliable eyewitnesses whose testimony that A1 fired a gun causing a gunshot injury (corroborated by medical evidence and PW5) could not be displaced by a ballistic report showing the recovered firearm did not match the recovered bullet; recovery of the actual weapon is not essential to convict; motive of prior enmity was established; A1 could be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC on direct evidence and A2 and A3 were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Parties
Appellant/accused: Rakesh; Appellant/accused: Anish; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent/complainant: Original complainant
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Judgment on Merits by Supreme Court (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of the courts below upheld
Legal Topics
Homicide, Eyewitness Testimony, Ballistic Evidence Vs Ocular Evidence, Weapon Recovery, Common Intention (section 34 Ipc), Motive/enmity
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Ballistics Arms Act Offences Homicide Eyewitness Testimony Ballistic Evidence Vs Ocular Evidence Weapon Recovery +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rakesh

Appellant/accused

Anish

Appellant/accused

State of U.P.

Respondent

Original complainant

Respondent/complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Judgment on Merits by Supreme Court (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PW1 and PW2 were credible eyewitnesses and present at the scene
  2. 2 Whether a ballistic report that a bullet does not match the recovered firearm undermines credible ocular and medical evidence
  3. 3 Whether recovery of the weapon used is a sine qua non for conviction

Ratio Decidendi

PW1 and PW2 were found to be reliable eyewitnesses whose testimony that A1 fired a gun causing a gunshot injury (corroborated by medical evidence and PW5) could not be displaced by a ballistic report showing the recovered firearm did not match the recovered bullet; recovery of the actual weapon is not essential to convict; motive of prior enmity was established; A1 could be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC on direct evidence and A2 and A3 were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences of the courts below upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentences of life imprisonment confirmed