Back
SANJAY KAROL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ashraf – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to high court's judgment and facts of case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis of evidence and reasoning for appeal dismissal (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. final decision on appeal and dismissal (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. The appellant-State lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.6798 of 2007 titled “Mohd. Ashraf & Ors. v. State of U.P.”.
2. Based on the FIR dated 1st April, 2005 being case Crime No.90/2005 lodged at PS Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, the accused were faced to suffer trial for having committed murder of Mohammad Aneesh. The evidence led by the prosecution persuaded the Trial Court to convict the accused, namely, Mohd. Ashraf, Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Shonu for having committed offence punishable under Sections 302 /34, 201/34, 392 and 412 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentence them to suffer imprisonment of different periods with the maximum being of life.
3. In an appeal preferred by the convicts, the High Court, in terms of the impugned judgment, has reversed findings of conviction of fact and the judgment of conviction and sentence and by setting off all
A conviction for murder cannot stand solely on circumstantial evidence without corroborative links to the accused's involvement in the crime.
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.
Murder – In a case of circumstantial evidence, chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate guilt of accused and also exclude any other theory of crime.
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime, particularly in murder cases where direct evidence is crucial.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on a single unreliable witness led to acquittal.
Murder – Theory of last seen together is very weak in absence of motive.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
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
