Naeem v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal against conviction for robbery and attempted murder, holding that witness discrepancies were minor and inconsistent time estimates were bona fide.
What did the court decide?
Appeal and application dismissed; appellant to undergo remaining sentence.
What the court decided
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. A. 408/2010 & Crl.M.B. 936/2010
% Reserved on:22nd November, 2011 Decided on: 3rd January, 2012 NAEEM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for State
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
- By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 11th March, 2010 whereby the Appellant and the co-accused Javed were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394/397/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 17th March, 2010 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for offences punishable under Sections 397/34 IPC and 394/34 IPC. The amount of fine is stated to have been paid. No appeal has been filed by co-accused Javed.
- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5th January, 2007 an information was received vide DD No. 27 that three/four persons have committed robbery in a house bearing number T-187, Gali No. 2 near Gautam Puri, Delhi and have run away from the spot. On receipt of the information ASI Jawahar Singh along with Const. Khushi Ram reached the place of occurrence of offence and recorded the statement of Ram Niwas. Amar Pal, the tenant of Ram Niwas living on the ground floor also claimed to have been robbed by the said persons. On the basis of the statement, a case was registered and
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether discrepancies in witness testimonies and adverse inferences from refusal of TIP warrant setting aside the conviction.
Whether the prosecution proved the case of attempted murder of the victims beyond reasonable doubt.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
NAEEM
- respondent
STATE
Coram
MUKTA GUPTA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court