advocate in delhi

_*• Criminal Law Appeal against Acquittal Offence of Robbery Appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material discrepancies and contradictions emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were overlooked on trivial grounds. No recovery was affected from A-2.The appellants have undergone substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to them Minor discrepancies or contradictions highlighted by the appellants' counsel are of no consequence as they do not affect the core of the prosecution case The accused persons did not examine any witness to prove if they were lifted from their respective houses as alleged Impugned judgment is based upon the fair appraisal of evidence and deserves no intervention. Their conviction is affirmed  Appeal disposed of*_ _*Sultan Ali vs State CRL-A 1147/13 30/03/16 [ SP GARG JJ ]*_ _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Legallite law firm  8851250058

_ Sections.376(2)(g), 506 IPC  Gang rape Age of prosecutrix  Nothing divulged as to what was exact date of birth of prosecutrix - No supporting document like birth certificate or school record was produced or proved-Apparently, prosecutrix and her family members attempted to conceal exact age of prosecutrix which was crucial to ascertain guilt of preprators of crime - Huge gap between age relied upon by prosecution and one found in ossification report remained unexplained Prosecutrix, held, to be above 16 years of age on the day when physical relations were established with her. [ Para 17 to 18 ]*_ _*Terjinder Singh v/s State CRL-A 267/13 [ SP GARG JJ ]*_ _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Legallites Law Firm 8851250058