T.S.THAKUR, V.S.SIRPURKAR
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
The legal principle regarding circumstantial evidence, as derived from the provided document, emphasizes that the case must rely on proof of every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances should be so complete and watertight that the only logical inference is the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, there should be no plausible alternative explanation for the circumstances established by the prosecution. The evidence must collectively lead to a single, conclusive conclusion of guilt, leaving no room for doubt or alternative hypotheses. This principle underscores the importance of a tightly connected set of circumstances that together form a complete chain, ensuring that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference from the proven facts (!) .
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2006 filed by Ramesh @ Gaguda (original accused No. 3), Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2006 filed by Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (original accused No. 2) and Criminal Appeal No. 1237 of 2006 filed by Gordhan Lal (original accused No. 1). We shall refer to the appellants as per their position before the Trial Court. While Ramesh @ Guguda (A-3) is sentenced to death by Trial and appellate Courts, the other two accused being Bharat Kumar @ Bhatia (A-2) and Gordhan Lal (A-1) are facing the life imprisonment alongwith fines on different counts. That is how the matters have come up before us.
2. Human avarice has no limits nor does it know of any emotions. The present case is the sordid saga of the crime which emanated purely from human avarice.
3. Phalodi is a quiet Taluk place in the State of Rajasthan. Ramlal Lunawat alongwith his wife Shanti Devi was doing business of money lending by pledging gold and silver ornaments and was selling steel utensils. On 5.2.2003, Anil (PW-1) telephoned to Police Station Phalodi that the door of the house-cum-shop of Ramlal was lying suspiciously open and nobody from the
Yeshwant & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra etc. etc. [1972 (3) SCC 639]
Hardyal Prem Vs. State of Rajasthan [1991 Supp. (1) SCC 148
Pulukari Kottaiah v. King Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67]
Mohd. Aman & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan etc. etc., [1997 (10) SCC 44]
Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan [2001 (6) SCC 296]
Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 (1) SCC 702].
Raghunath Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. etc. etc. [2003 (1) SCC 398]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram [2003 (8) SCC 180]
Suhil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 394] Distinguished. (Para 26)
Chandmal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan [1976 (1) SCC 621]
Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra [1980 (1) SCC 530]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC 684]
State of M.P. Vs. Nisar [2007 (5) SCC 658] Distinguished. (Para 21)
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra [2010 (1) SCC 775]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.