Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Loss of Trial Court Records: High Court of Delhi Sets Aside Conviction U/S 304 part-II IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the High Court of Delhi, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, has set aside the convictions of appellants in the cases of CRL.A. 741/2003 and CRL.A. 719/2003. The judgment, delivered on January 3, 2024, underscores the crucial importance of complete Trial Court Records (TCR) in upholding the principles of a fair trial and justice.

The appellants, initially convicted under Section 304 part-II IPC read with Section 34 IPC, challenged the trial court’s decision, which was primarily based on the preponderance of probabilities and involved witnesses who had turned hostile.

Justice Vikas Mahajan, in his ruling, stated, "In order to affirm the conviction of the appellant, the perusal of the Trial Court Record is the essential element of hearing of the appeal. Every appellant has a right to satisfy the Appellate Court that the material evidence available on record did not justify his conviction and this is a valuable right which cannot be denied to an appellant." This observation highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that the rights of the appellants are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The judgment took into account the non-reconstruction of the TCR, which was deemed essential for a fair appellate review. The High Court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions, notably ‘State of UP vs. Abhay Raj Singh & Anr.’ and ‘Jitendra Kumar Rode vs. Union of India’, to reinforce the principle that the absence of complete trial records violates the right to a fair trial.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

RAMESH & ANR. VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 

 

Latest Legal News