Pramod v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Convictions for abduction and murder rested on circumstantial evidence, including telephone records and recoveries of the body and blood-stained trousers. The court held the chain complete despite discrepancies about recovery timings and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the convictions and sentences.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Reserved on : 14th December, 2015 % Date of Decision : 15th January, 2016
- CRL.A. 1368/2013
| PRAMOD | ..... Appellant | |
|---|---|---|
| Through: | Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Mr. Farooq Chaudhary, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar (DHCLSC) and Mr. |
|
| Anirudh Tanwar, Advocates along with appellant in person |
||
| Versus | ||
| STATE | .... Respondent | |
| Through: | Mr. Varun Goswami, APP along with Inspector Sanjeev Arora-PS Ahsok Vihar |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
R. K. GAUBA, J:
- The appellant stands convicted for the offences of abduction and murder of Anil Puri Goswami on 02.10.2008, out of vengeance for the victim had got married to Pooja who was lawfully wedded wife of the former, primarily believing the evidence about he being inexplicably in
Crl.A.No.1368/2013 Page 1 of 32
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Did the circumstantial evidence establish the appellant's guilt for abduction and murder?
Did discrepancies between police testimony and mortuary records undermine recovery of the body at the appellant's instance?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
PRAMOD
- respondent
STATE
Coram
Sanjiv Khanna
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court