Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Vaibhav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This is a tale of two friends, Vaibhav and Mangesh, who were studying at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College, Arvat Chandrapur, Maharashtra. They were students of first year and often used to commute together on their two-wheelers. On the fateful day of 16.09.2010, both friends left the college together on the scooter belonging to Mangesh, had tea at the tea stall of PW-3 and arrived at Vaibhav’s house in the afternoon. When Mangesh’s father/PW-1 discovered late in the evening that his son had not reached home, he tried to find out and eventually lodged a missing report. The next day, on 17.09.2010, the dead body of Mangesh was found and accordingly, the present criminal case came to be registered against unknown persons.
2. Investigation commenced and a supplementary statement of PW-1 was recorded wherein he raised suspicion against Vaibhav, Mangesh’s friend, classmate, scooter partner and appellant before us in the present appeal. Upon investigation, the police prepared the chargesheet wherein the appellant was alleged to have caused death of deceased Mangesh by shooting him by the gun belonging to the appellant’s father/PW-12.
3. Upon trial, the
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of Evidence Act – When Court is faced wit....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
Circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction; any reasonable doubt mandates acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must form a conclusive chain linked to the accused, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no viable alternative explanations for innocence.
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent with guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence for a valid conviction.
Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain linking accused to crime; absence of ballistic report connecting recovered pistol to gunshot, no firing eyewitness, and unreliab....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
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
