• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, March 20, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

The convicted murderer who was given the death penalty by the trial court is acquitted by the Allahabad High Court

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
July 12, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0
0
Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court

0
SHARES
6
VIEWS

A murder suspect who had been given the death penalty by the trial court was acquitted last week by the Allahabad High Court bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain in the case of Ram Pratap @ Tillu v. State of UP.

The court ruled that even if motive and absconding may raise serious doubts, an accused person cannot be found guilty based solely on those two elements. While allowing the appeal and overturning the trial court’s decision, the court argued that because the case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, the appellant’s guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The reference to confirm the death penalty is answered in negative and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded to accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is rejected. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. The appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is acquitted of all the charges for which he has been tried. The appellant shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case,” 

The Court Ordered

The decision was made in an appeal against a conviction for murder issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in Etawah, who sentenced the appellant to death and fined INR 5 lakh.

READ ALSO

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

Six family members were brutally murdered due to a property dispute between two brothers, which gave rise to the case. The appellant was the brother of the deceased who, after selling all of his possessions, was pressuring his brother for money. The prosecution claimed that the appellant killed the deceased and his five family members with the assistance of a friend before running away.

The trial court found the appellant guilty after reviewing the evidence in the case, but cleared the co-accused. The death penalty was imposed after it was determined that the case belonged in the rarest of the rare category.

The appellant claimed that because there was no admissible evidence in the case, the trial court made a serious mistake by convicting him. The absence of eyewitness reports of the occurrence and the fact that the case was entirely supported by circumstantial evidence were both brought up in court.

Additionally, it was argued that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the line of events that led to the incriminating circumstances.

The appellant cited the trial court’s strong emphasis on the crime’s motivation as well as his own later absconding as evidence. It was clarified, nonetheless, that these facts alone could not constitute a foundation for conviction.

The appellant argued that the evidence against him did not support the death penalty and that he was therefore entitled to be acquitted.

The division bench stated that although the case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked eye witness testimony, instances in which a conviction might be recorded in a case based on circumstantial evidence were well established.

In support of this, reference was made to a Supreme Court decision in Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra, where the court noted and determined that despite the prosecution’s potential success in proving the motive and the appellant’s subsequent disappearance, it was unable to establish any other incriminating facts with certainty.

“Merely on the basis of motive and abscondence, though it may give rise to strong suspicion, the accused cannot be held guilty“,

The Court Obsered

As a result, it was decided that the chain of events that would have proved the appellant’s guilt in the matter at hand was incomplete. As a result, the appellant deserved to be acquitted.

Advocates Agnivesh, Arimardan Yadav, and Jadu Nandan Yadav appeared on behalf of the appellant while Additional Advocate General Ram Naresh Singh represented the State.

Read Order

Ram_Pratap_v_State_of_UPDownload
Tags: Allahabad High Courtcircumstantial evidencedeath penaltyDeath sentence
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

February 13, 2023
Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.
News

Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.

February 13, 2023
Central Government notifies appointment of Justice Sonia G Gokani as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court
News

The appointment of Justice Sonia G. Gokani as the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court has been announced by the central government.

February 13, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

by By Justuce Bench
February 13, 2023
0
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt, wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Allahabad HC rules Daughter has the right to demand maintenance from father

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • [Gyanvapi Mosque] Plea to quash FIR Lucknow University professor refused – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • On custody of a surrogate child born before Surrogacy Act of 2021 the Allahabad High Court has sought a response from Centre

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In