VISHAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-24
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
April 02,2014
VISHAL YADAV
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHAIN MAHTO V. THE EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]VISCOUNT SIMON IN STIRLAND V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION [REFERRED TO]
SALMON,J. IN HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY IN R. V. FANTLE [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAM V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
TEHAL SINGH AND ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR V. STATE WHEREIN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAM DAS V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
KEVJI AND ORS. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAMKISHAN MITHANLAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
ATLEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU BABAJI NAVLE VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
BATAN GOND VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHOO VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MASALTI MUNGA RAM BHAGWATI CHANDAN SINALI LAXMI PRASAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA PRASAD THAKUR VS. RAM EKBAL RAI DEAD [REFERRED TO]
JAFFAR HUSSAIN DASTAGIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UDAIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DAMODARPRASAD CHANDRIKAPRASAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
SOHRAB S O BELI NAYATA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI GENU MOHITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
R M MALKANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KARANSINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SAWAL DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BAVA HAJEE HAMSA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KHEM KARAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT GANPAT SOVITKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHMED INAYATULLAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KARTAREY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR KAUR DALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR DEY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
INDERSINGH VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
JETHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
MODAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SYAD AKBAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BADRUDDIN RUKONDDIM KARPUDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAFEEZ VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAFEEZ VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD VS. S SARDAR ALI BUS OWNER HYDERABAD AND [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. M K ANTHONY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KRISHNA GOPAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ANIL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GURBACHAN SINGH VS. SATPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYEESINGH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KHUJJIALIASSURENDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
MULAKHRAJ VS. SATISH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH MOHNI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJOY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SUKHVINDERSINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI GURBACHAN SINGH RAJ PAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
TARSEEM KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
LAL MANDI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
JACKARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER SUBHASH CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH :SHIAM BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
GENTELA VIJAYAVARDHAN RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDAR SINGH SHERGIL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SARUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. NAHAR SINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JEET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. TEJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. TEJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. TEJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAGIRATH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZAHID VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MOLAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KOLI LAKHMANBHAI CHANABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM [REFERRED TO]
KANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DAMU S O GOPINATH SHINDE [REFERRED TO]
VASA CHANDRASELHAR RAO VS. PONNA SATYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HUKAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SUNIL [REFERRED TO]
GURA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
GURA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PATEL HIRALAL JOITARAM VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MAJID VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER PAL SINGH VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MANI KUMAR THAPA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [REFERRED TO]
THAMAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
GOLAKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOLAKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. AJAIB SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANGANAYAKI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE N C T OF DELHI VS. NAVJOT SANDHU ALIAS AFSAN GURU [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ALIAS UNDRYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
S SUDERSHAN REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHIMAPPA CHANDAPPA HOSAMANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
YUVARAJ AMBAR MOHITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRUSHNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SATTATIYA ALIAS SATISH RAJANNA KARTALLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SATTATIYA ALIAS SATISH RAJANNA KARTALLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VINAY D NAGAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHANPAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SARAVANAN [REFERRED TO]
PRITHU ALIAS PRITHI CHAND VS. STATE OF H P [REFERRED TO]
JAVED ALAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
JAVED ALAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRON SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SANTOSH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN PANJA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PRITHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
C MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SAMBHU DAS ALIAS BIJOY DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JOHN PANDIAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KULVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ARIF ALIAS ASHFAQ VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AMITAVA BANERJEE ALIAS AMIT ALIAS BAPPA BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJU ALIAS KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDARAJU ALIAS GOVINDA VS. STATE BY SRIRAMAPURAM P S [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
KAVINDER VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
VINODKUMAR BADERBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRABHAI KARSANBHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA SINGH AND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL CHOUKHANI VS. WESTERN INDIA THEATRES LTD [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTKA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HADU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BHAKUA KAMPA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
FELLIX JOANNAS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. AMMINI [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJ VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
NATARAJAN VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [REFERRED TO]
LEELA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HIRDAY SINGH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BIBHABATI DEVI VS. RAMENDRA NARAYAN ROY [REFERRED TO]
PULUKURI KOTTAYA VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
GOKULCHAND DWARKADAS MORARKA VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BECHARAM MUKHERJI VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
GITA MITTAL, J. -
(1.)JUSTICE to all - the accused, the society as well as a fair chance to prove to the prosecution - is not only an integral part of the criminal
justice system but it is its prime objective. This finds reiteration by
the Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported at (2012) 8 SCC 263,
Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal when the court emphasized
thus:
"34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly attaining this object of a "fair trial", the Court shouldleave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well."
(2.)IN the two trials giving rise to these appeals, these are the public duties which the learned Trial Judges have endeavoured to discharge. While adjudicating upon these appeals, it is these very duties which we have been called upon to perform.
The appellants in Crl. Appeal nos.741/2008 and 910/2008 have assailed the judgment dated 28th May, 2008 in SC Case No.78/2002 whereby they stand convicted for commission of offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the order on sentence dated 30th May, 2008. Whereas the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.145/2012 has laid a challenge to the judgment dated 6th of July 2011 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the same offence in SC Case No.76/2008 and order on sentence dated 12th of July 2011. By the present judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgments dated 28th of May 2008 and 6th July, 2011 on which detailed arguments have been addressed. The case of the prosecution
(3.)WE may first briefly notice the case of the prosecution. The Katara family were residents of 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to Shri Nishit M. Katara, government servant. The family consisted of his wife Nilam Katara; their elder son Nitish Katara (deceased) and a second son Nitin Katara.
"34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly attaining this object of a "fair trial", the Court shouldleave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well."
(2.)IN the two trials giving rise to these appeals, these are the public duties which the learned Trial Judges have endeavoured to discharge. While adjudicating upon these appeals, it is these very duties which we have been called upon to perform.
The appellants in Crl. Appeal nos.741/2008 and 910/2008 have assailed the judgment dated 28th May, 2008 in SC Case No.78/2002 whereby they stand convicted for commission of offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the order on sentence dated 30th May, 2008. Whereas the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.145/2012 has laid a challenge to the judgment dated 6th of July 2011 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the same offence in SC Case No.76/2008 and order on sentence dated 12th of July 2011. By the present judgment, we propose to decide the challenge to the judgments dated 28th of May 2008 and 6th July, 2011 on which detailed arguments have been addressed. The case of the prosecution
(3.)WE may first briefly notice the case of the prosecution. The Katara family were residents of 7 Chelmsford Road, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to Shri Nishit M. Katara, government servant. The family consisted of his wife Nilam Katara; their elder son Nitish Katara (deceased) and a second son Nitin Katara.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.