State v. Manoj Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court granted leave to the State (NCT of Delhi) to file an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. challenging the Trial Court's acquittal of the Respondent for murder and related offences, accepting the State's submission that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed.
What did the court decide?
Leave to file an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. was granted; Respondent directed to furnish personal bond of Rs. 5,000/-.
What the court decided
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.L.P. 164/2022
STATE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. SI Deepak Sahu, PS PulPrahladpur.
versus
MANOJ KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav and Mr. Prashant Jain, Advocates alongwith respondent in person.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
O R D E R % 16.08.2024
- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
- This is a leave petition filed on behalf of the Appellant-State (NCT of Delhi) under Section 378 Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2019 passed by Special Judge (NDPS), South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 2663/2016 in FIR No. 77/16, P.S. PulPrahladpur, under Section 302 IPC. Vide the said impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2019 the Trial Court has acquitted the Accused/Respondent of the offences charged under Section 302/379/411 IPC.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused should be granted.
Whether the alleged connection between the accused and the offence was sufficient to establish guilt despite circumstantial evidence.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
State
- respondent
Manoj Kumar
Coram
Prathiba M. Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court