Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-09-28 allowed

Amrish Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Bench: 2 — Navin Sinha

In Brief

Amrish Rana was convicted under IPC Sections 307, 147, 148 and Section 25 of the Arms Act for his alleged involvement in a shooting incident. The sole witness (PW11), a jail warder, did not name the appellant in the FIR, instead identifying only Gurjant Singh and four unknown persons. In court, PW11 testified that the appellant was present and that he knew him from jail, attributing the second shot to the appellant rather than to an unknown assailant as he had stated to police. The Supreme Court found these material omissions and contradictions—particularly the first-time naming of the appellant in court—created reasonable doubt about the appellant's presence at the occurrence. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Witness Examination Identification and Presence Contradictions in Testimony Burden of Proof Benefit of Doubt

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login