Back
VIBHA KANKANWADI, ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Yuvraj Keshav Mandge – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present Appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.399 of 2016 on 2/8/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.
2. Before we proceed to consider the facts in dispute, the facts which are not in dispute are taken note of. PW-1 Jitendra @ Haribhau Keshav Mandge is serving in Police Department. He is resident of Patil Vasti, Pimpri Gavali Shivar, Taluka-Parner, District-Ahmednagar. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') i.e. 15/8/2016 he was attached to Shirur Police Station, District-Pune. Present appellant is his real brother. Both of them were married, however, on the date of incident the wives of both the brothers were not cohabiting with them. Informant Jitendra, accused Yuvraj were residing with their mother Tarabai and grand-mother (mother's mother) Anusaya Rajaram Haral. Accused was employed in Military since 2002 and on the date of incident he was posted at Kargil and he had come on leave for about 15 days. Their father Keshav expired on 27/5/2014. They ha
The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the need for conclusive proof, and the requirement to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
In criminal cases, consistent and credible evidence is essential; discrepancies and reliance on related witnesses can undermine the prosecution's case and result in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when the evidence does not concl....
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
