VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Dashwanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
The courts have emphasized that proper sealing of evidence is a crucial step in maintaining the integrity of the evidentiary chain. Sealed evidence ensures that the articles are protected from tampering, contamination, or substitution, which is vital for establishing their authenticity and reliability in court proceedings (!) . Additionally, thorough documentation of the seizure process, including signatures of witnesses and officers involved, as well as clear labeling with case details, is essential to create an unbroken chain of custody (!) (!) .
Any procedural lapses, such as failing to seal the evidence at the time of seizure or not properly recording the transfer and storage details, can cast serious doubts on the evidence’s credibility (!) (!) . Such deficiencies compromise the evidentiary value and can lead to questions about whether the evidence has been handled appropriately, which in turn can affect the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction. Therefore, strict adherence to sealing and documentation protocols is fundamental to uphold justice and ensure that the evidence remains untainted throughout the process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments from the appellant's counsel regarding the prosecution's case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. court's observations on the prosecution's evidence and trial conduct. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 61 , 67 , 71 , 76 , 80 , 82) |
| 4. principles regarding proof and burden in circumstantial evidence. (Para 40 , 42) |
| 5. conclusion resulting in the acquittal of the appellant. (Para 83 , 84 , 85) |
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant herein was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet1[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’] in Special Sessions Case No. 33 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 354-B, 302, and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18602[For short, ‘IPC’] and Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 6 read with Section 5 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123[For short, ‘POCSO Act’]. The trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th February, 2018 convicted the accused-appellant4[Hereinafter, ref
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab
Allauddin Mian and Ors. v. State of Bihar
Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab
Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya
Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Bodhraj alias Bodha and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
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....
(1) DNA report is substantive piece of evidence and same could not have been tendered in evidence through affidavit – Only evidence of formal nature can be given on affidavits.(2) Circumstantial evid....
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.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and doubts over evidence credibility can lead to acquittal.
(1) Statutory safeguards in reference to language must be complied with.(2) When a case is governed by circumstantial evidence, such evidence must point singularly to guilt of appellant, closing out ....
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 prosecution's burden is to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.