Back
B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, SANDEEP MEHTA
Abdul Nassar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 28th February, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 and Death Sentence Reference No. 3 of 20131[Hereinafter, being referred to as D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013]. The Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal arose out of the judgment dated 31st July 2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri2[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 487 of 2012.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’] and sentenced him as follows:
(i). Under Section 302 IPC: Death sentence (subject to the confirmation by the High Court)
(ii). Under Section 376 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months). [This imprisonment was allowed to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’]]
3. Being ag
The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, with DNA and witness testimonies establishing the accused's guilt, affirming the death sentence as the case fell within the rarest of rare categor....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on established circumstantial evidence, affirming that all necessary conditions for such conviction were met.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in capital cases; failures in fair trial procedures and unreliable circumstantial evidence undermine convicti....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links in the chain must be proven conclusively to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
