Gambhir Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 285

VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Gambhir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Tomar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. wherein it was held that:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharash