Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Randeep Singh @ Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appellants accused were charged for committing the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). There were eight accused persons. The respondent nos. 2 to 6 and one Bhim Sain @ Kaka Ganth were the other accused. All of them were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. All of them preferred appeals to the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the appellants' conviction. But other accused were acquitted.
2. The deceased-Gurpal Singh was the father of the complainant-Jagpreet Singh (PW-8). The case of the prosecution is that on 8th July 2013, the deceased left his house in his Ford Fiesta car. The deceased had gone to meet his sister-Paramjeet Kaur (PW-26). He had visited PW-26 at about 06:30 pm. After meeting PW-26, when the deceased was returning to his house and had reached the main
(1) Kidnapping, murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Brutality of offence does not dispense with legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Courts can convict accused only if ....
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and all links in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable without a complete chain of evidence, and undue delay in handling forensic samples raises integrity concerns.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
The use of inadmissible evidence, particularly confessions made to police officers, is grounds for overturning a conviction under criminal law.
(1) Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict accused – Last-seen theory comes into play where time-gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last see....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
