Case Number: 2025/HC/001Defendant: Ajay SharmaPetitioner: State vs. Ajay SharmaThis prosecution appeal was presented before the Hon’ble High Court as a challenge to the conviction of the accused, Ajay Sharma, by the Sessions Court under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner contended that the lower court’s judgment contained legal errors and sought its annulment.The case pertains to an incident on April 15, 2024, at approximately 9:30 PM, where the accused, Ajay Sharma, along with co-accused Ramesh Verma, allegedly murdered the victim, Mohan Gupta, a close relative of the complainant, using a sharp weapon. The incident was witnessed by Rajesh Pandey, who subsequently lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Kotwali police station. The Investigating Officer conducted an inspection at the crime scene, where a blood-stained knife and the victim’s clothing were recovered.As per the medico-legal post-mortem report, the victim suffered seven injuries, two of which were fatal. The expert medical officer confirmed that the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage and trauma. During judicial custody, the accused partially confessed to the crime, and relevant portions of his statement were admitted as evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.The trial court convicted the accused based on eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, and circumstantial evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the trial court erred in the collection and assessment of evidence and failed to conduct a proper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay, raising doubts about the prosecution's credibility. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses were alleged to be hostile toward the accused, making their testimony unreliable. Additionally, it was contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not conclusively established, and in the absence of a direct link, the conviction was unjustified.The state's counsel countered these arguments, asserting that despite the delay in filing the FIR, the forensic evidence, coupled with the circumstantial facts, firmly established the accused’s involvement. It was also argued that the credibility of witnesses could not be dismissed merely because they were related to the victim.Upon thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the Hon’ble High Court ruled as follows:The Sessions Court had adhered to the due process of law in convicting the accused.The circumstantial evidence and forensic findings conclusively established the accused’s involvement.The sentence awarded to the accused was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.Accordingly, it was ordered that the conviction and life imprisonment of the accused, Ajay Sharma, shall remain in force. Case Number: 2025/HC/001Defendant: Ajay SharmaPetitioner: State vs. Ajay SharmaThis prosecution appeal was presented before the Hon’ble High Court as a challenge to the conviction of the accused, Ajay Sharma, by the Sessions Court under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner contended that the lower court’s judgment contained legal errors and sought its annulment.The case pertains to an incident on April 15, 2024, at approximately 9:30 PM, where the accused, Ajay Sharma, along with co-accused Ramesh Verma, allegedly murdered the victim, Mohan Gupta, a close relative of the complainant, using a sharp weapon. The incident was witnessed by Rajesh Pandey, who subsequently lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Kotwali police station. The Investigating Officer conducted an inspection at the crime scene, where a blood-stained knife and the victim’s clothing were recovered.As per the medico-legal post-mortem report, the victim suffered seven injuries, two of which were fatal. The expert medical officer confirmed that the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage and trauma. During judicial custody, the accused partially confessed to the crime, and relevant portions of his statement were admitted as evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.The trial court convicted the accused based on eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, and circumstantial evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the trial court erred in the collection and assessment of evidence and failed to conduct a proper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay, raising doubts about the prosecution's credibility. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses were alleged to be hostile toward the accused, making their testimony unreliable. Additionally, it was contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not conclusively established, and in the absence of a direct link, the conviction was unjustified.The state's counsel countered these arguments, asserting that despite the delay in filing the FIR, the forensic evidence, coupled with the circumstantial facts, firmly established the accused’s involvement. It was also argued that the credibility of witnesses could not be dismissed merely because they were related to the victim.Upon thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the Hon’ble High Court ruled as follows:The Sessions Court had adhered to the due process of law in convicting the accused.The circumstantial evidence and forensic findings conclusively established the accused’s involvement.The sentence awarded to the accused was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.Accordingly, it was ordered that the conviction and life imprisonment of the accused, Ajay Sharma, shall remain in force. Submit