{"id":186014,"date":"2018-02-06T14:33:31","date_gmt":"2018-02-06T09:03:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=186014"},"modified":"2018-02-06T14:33:31","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T09:03:31","slug":"appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:<\/strong> A Division Bench comprising of Sunil Gaur and Pratibha M. Singh JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant had been sentenced to go imprisonment for life under S. 302 IPC and 5 years RI under Section 201 IPC.<\/p>\n

The conviction of the appellant was based on testimonies of several witness, the testimony of which revealed the existence of a mobile number the appellant had used to call PW 16 after committing the crime. The appellant took plea of innocence, however, no witnesses were examined on the defence\u2019 behalf.<\/p>\n

The Court analysed the evidence before it and came to the conclusion that the conviction did not rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. PW 16, who was married to the deceased, disclosed in her testimony that she and the appellant did talk over the phone to each other to which the deceased strongly objected. The appellant had motive to murder the deceased. PW 16 also had stood strong upon her testimony that the appellant had made an \u2018extra judicial confession\u2019 to her after committing murder of the deceased. Considering that PW 16 had immediately informed her mother-in-law about the phone call, ruled her out of involvement in the murder. Further, even though the mobile numbers which were brought up in the testimonies of witnesses were not registered in PW 16 and the appellant\u2019s name, but nonetheless there was enough evidence to suggest that they did have access to the respective mobile numbers. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. [Atul Sharma v. State,\u00a0 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6855<\/a>, decided on 27.01.2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sunil Gaur and Pratibha M. Singh JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts"],"yoast_head":"\nAppeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sunil Gaur and Pratibha M. Singh JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T09:03:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/\",\"name\":\"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-06T09:03:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sunil Gaur and Pratibha M. Singh JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-02-06T09:03:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/","name":"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-02-06T09:03:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/06\/appeal-conviction-unsupported-arguments-examination-witnesses-liable-dismissed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appeal against conviction unsupported by arguments and examination of witnesses liable to be dismissed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":201523,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/07\/conviction-under-section-302-ipc-upheld-in-light-of-direct-evidence-of-12-year-old-daughter-of-convict\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":0},"title":"Conviction under Section 302 IPC\u00a0upheld in light of direct evidence of 12 year old daughter of convict","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was charged for murdering his wife by stabbing her with a knife. In\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":203023,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/03\/abstaining-from-funeral-of-father-contrary-to-normal-human-conduct-to-be-considered-incriminating-factor-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":1},"title":"Abstaining from funeral of father contrary to normal human conduct, to be considered incriminating factor: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of Bombay High Court whereby the appellant\u2019s conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld. The appellant was convicted for the murder of his father. The occurrence was stated to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/20\/accused-convicted-under-section-302-ipc-in-light-of-no-alternative-theory\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":2},"title":"Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC in light of \u2018no alternative theory\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was alleged to have murdered his wife. It was proved that the deceased\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":205896,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/29\/conviction-under-section-302-ipc-upheld-on-finding-incident-to-be-not-at-spur-of-moment\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":3},"title":"Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld on finding incident to be not at spur of moment","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and M.R. Shah, JJ. dismissed an appeal arising out of Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, while altering the conviction and sentence awarded under Sections 304 Part II IPC to that of under Section 302 IPC. The factual\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226889,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/12\/jhar-hc-conviction-for-murder-reversed-for-non-corroboration-of-unreliable-and-untrustworthy-testimony-of-deceaseds-daughter\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":4},"title":"Jhar HC | Conviction for murder reversed for non-corroboration of unreliable and untrustworthy testimony of deceased’s daughter","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 12, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of\u00a0Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the appellant has committed the crime. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":48751,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/23\/conviction-modified-from-section-302-ipc-to-section-304-ii-ipc-for-the-accused-who-raped-an-8-year-old-girldeceased\/","url_meta":{"origin":186014,"position":5},"title":"Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (II) IPC for the accused who raped an 8 year old girl(deceased)","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 23, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: While dealing with a death reference the Court cancelled the death sentence","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}