In Brief
The appellant was convicted of robbery under IPC s. 394 by the trial court and High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that appellate courts should not routinely re-examine evidence when trial and High courts have reached concurrent findings on key facts. The court rejected the appellant's pleas of mental illness and juvenility as unsubstantiated, noting his failure to maintain contact with counsel for years. With twelve credible witness testimonies and no genuine doubt about guilt, the conviction was upheld without interference.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.