Back
VINAY JOSHI, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
Adina wd/o Subhash Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ghatanji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VINAY JOSHI, J.
Appellants/ original accused nos. 1 and 2 who are convicted by judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.187/2019 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with payment of fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, have filed this Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentence. The accused no.1 Adina was on bail during the trial, as well as her execution of sentence was suspended during the pendency of this Appeal. Accused no.2 Ankush is in jail till date.
2. The facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be stated in brief as under :
Deceased Subhash Rathod was residing with his wife Adina (Accused No.1- A1) and daughter Sweety aged 6 years and son Kartik aged 5 years at Village Mowada, Taluq Ghatanji, District Yavatmal. PW 6 – Police Inspector Dineshchandra Shukla, who was attached to Ghatanji Police Station was on duty on 09.08.2019. At around 9 a.m. PW 2- Pawan R
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of rea....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
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
