Madan Pal v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Death appeal challenging conviction under Section 302 IPC. High Court set aside conviction and acquitted appellant citing unreliable prosecution witnesses, defective site plans, flawed investigation regarding address and trigger, and failure to examine weapon with medical officer.
What did the court decide?
Impugned judgment and sentence set aside; accused acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC; bail bonds discharged.
What the court decided
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A.754/2003
Reserved on: 9th August, 2018 Decided on: 23rd August, 2018
MADAN PAL .....Appellant Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, Advocate.
versus
STATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
J U D G M E N T
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th September 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (hereinafter „trial Court‟) in SC No.35/1998 arising out of FIR No.419/1997 registered at PS Nabi Karim whereby the Appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It also seeks to assail the order on sentence dated 30th September 2003 whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction was safe due to discrepancies in investigation and unreliable witness testimony.
Whether defective site plans and lack of evidence regarding the death certificate justified benefit of doubt.
Did the failure to examine the weapon with the medical officer affect the prosecution case?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Madan Pal
- respondent
State
Coram
Dr. S. Muralidhar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court