Shri Irfan v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court rejected appeals against convictions for robbery and offences under the Arms Act. The court held that the prosecution proved its case despite witness hostility and lack of MLC, dismissing the appeals and affirming the sentence.
What did the court decide?
Appeals dismissed; appellants to undergo remaining sentence.
What the court decided
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 331/2009 % Reserved on: 14th December, 2011 Decided on: 4th January, 2012 IRFAN ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with SI Ashish PS New Usmanpur
AND
+ CRL.A. 660/2010 & Crl.M.B. 778/2010
YUSUF @ GALKATA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with SI Ashish PS New Usmanpur
Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
- By these appeals the Appellants lay a challenge to the judgment dated 26th November, 2008 convicting the Appellants for offences under Section 393/398/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act and the order dated 3rd December, 1998 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Sections 398/34 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 days for offences under Sections 393/34
Crl.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 1 of 5
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt despite hostile witnesses and lack of medical evidence.
Whether the appellants were falsely implicated as they were going to another market.
Whether the absence of a Medical Examination Report (MLC) falsifies the complainant's statement regarding injuries.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
IRFAN
- appellant
YUSUF @ GALKATA
- respondent
STATE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court