Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
B. R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Kamal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) vide which the trial court convicted the original three accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution story, shorn of details, is as under:
(1) If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful.
(2) However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable....
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established, conclusive, and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excluding every ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt....
Conviction cannot be based only on the basis of recovery.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction cannot rely on mere last seen theory without corroborating evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent, definite, and form a complete chain to support a conviction.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.