Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAKIR versus STATE OF M.P.

Decided
6 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 276 · 2009 INSC 726

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was convicted after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms of Section 366 A and 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Out of the five accused persons tried, two absconded and the rest three were convicted A by the Trial Court. Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the concerned, he preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted by the Trial Court.

pp. 276–277, margin F

2

So far as the appellant is concerned his primary stand before the Trial Court and the High Court was that the prosecutrix having not identified him to be one of the persons who subjected her to rape, his conviction cannot be maintained. The High Court did not deal with this aspect but confirmed the conviction and sentences as imposed by the Trial Court. In support of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the examination in chief itself the victim (PW-6) stated as follows:- 'I recognise the accused Raju and Pancham Present in the Court. The witness after seeing the accused Jakir states D that "I do not recognise him because I have never been him"

p. 277

3

Learned counsel for the State referred to letter parte of the evidence where in generalised manner the role of the five accused persons was described.

p. 277

4

Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she did not recognise him as she had never seen him.

p. 277

5

That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

p. 277