With the help of the case, State (Delhi Administration) vs Laxman Kumar and Others(1985), explain the appellate system in our country
Answers
Answer:
ONLY GIRLS.
Google classroom
please join on google classeoom only for ll girls / Code- peplydz
for fun.
Answer: BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening between 18/19.09.2007 in front of House No. O 81, Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL 4CAG 5470, Chasis No.905589 and Engine No.883460, colour black and on the basis of statement of complainant Krishna Devi present case has been registered against the accused persons. During the investigation, on 12.10.2007 at about 6:45 PM at Peer Baba Shri Ram Park, Nangloi accused Sanjay Pandey was found in possession of the aforesaid car.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police challan was filed in the court and copies of the same were supplied to the accused persons to their satisfaction.
3. On the basis of the challan, charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons and charge for offence punishable under section 411 IPC was framed against accused Sanjay Pandey, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No: 40/07 State v. Laxman etc. Page No.2/6
4. During the pendency of trial, accused Sanjay Pandey and Parveen pleaded guilty and vide order dated 14.12.2013, both the accused persons were convicted.
5. In support of its case prosecution examined eleven witnesses. PW1 HC Sahib Singh is the Duty Officer who recorded the present FIR Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Smt. Krishna Devi deposed that on 19.09.2007 her nephew Pankaj had parked her Santro Car bearing No.5470 in front of her house and next day in the morning she found her aforesaid car was not present there. She further deposed that she also went to PS and made complaint and after some days police informed her that her aforesaid car has been recovered which she received on superdari vide Ex PW2/A. PW3 Ct. Jaswant Singh proved the DD No.24 and DD No.36 Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Laxman Singh Ex. PW3/D, seizure memo of car Ex. PW3/E and Kalandra vide DD No.25 is Ex. PW3/F and Kalandra vide DD No.36 Ex. PW3/G. PW4 HC Jagdish Narayan proved the arrest memo of accused Laxman vide Ex. PW4/C. PW5 ASI Amar Pal deposed that accused Praveen @ Sonu was arrested from Nihal Vihar under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C. PW6 Ct. Manoj Kumar took the FIR and original rukka to Vani Vihar and handed over the same to IO Didar Singh. PW7 HC Vijender Singh joined the investigation with HC Subhash Chand in proceedings under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C, PP Nihal Vihar. PW8 FIR No: 40/07 State v. Laxman etc. Page No.3/6 ASI Devender also joined investigation with PW9 Inspector Jai Prakash in proceedings under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C vide which accused persons were apprehended. PW10 HC Didar Singh formally arrested accused Laxman vide memo Ex. PW4/C. He also proved the rukka Ex. PW10/A1, FIR Ex. PW1/A and also prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/A2. PW11 ASI Subhash deposed about the investigation done with respect to accused Praveen.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Laxman was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from his possession. He further stated that he was lifted from his house by the police.
7. I have heard the counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record.
8. The only piece of evidence produced by the prosecution against the accused is proceedings under Section 102 Cr.P.C vide DD No.25 Ex. PW3/F in which on the basis of disclosure Ex. PW3/D, the stolen Santro car was recovered. As per Ex. PW1/A, this car was stolen on 19.09.2007, but the FIR was not registered till 11.10.2007. The time of registration of FIR is midnight 0010 AM. Surprisingly DD No.25 vide which accused was arrested is of 11.10.2007. DD No.36 Ex. PW3/B is the arrival entry by which accused was brought into PS Nangloi and time of that entry is 12 FIR No: 40/07 State v. Laxman etc. Page No.4/6 midnight. The record of DD No.36 shows that it was one accused Parveen who disclosed about the theft of vehicle committed by him along with accused Laxman and Sanjay and after that at about 12:30 midnight the accused Laxman and Sanjay were arrested in a stolen car. It is after this arrest the disclosure statement of accused Laxman was recorded along with some other disclosure statements. The fact that FIR was registered immediately before these proceedings were conducted in a different police station itself brings the doubt about the way investigation has been done.
Explanation: Please mark me the brainleist