Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SUMAN SHYAM, SHYAM C.CHANDAK
Anuj Arjun Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeals were filed against a judgment which convicted the accused of serious offenses, including murder and gang rape, based largely on circumstantial evidence (!) (!) .
The trial court's findings indicated that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, including evidence of sexual assault, homicidal death by throttling, and disappearance of evidence by throwing the body into a well (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution relied on testimonies, forensic reports, mobile call records, and recovery of articles from the scene to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defense challenged the reliability of witness testimonies, the validity of circumstantial evidence, and the sufficiency of forensic and DNA evidence, asserting that crucial links in the chain of evidence were weak or unreliable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court critically examined the evidence, noting inconsistencies, unexplained delays, and suspicious conduct of witnesses, which cast doubt on the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) [p
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the appeals and initial court findings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the crime leading to the trial. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 3. testimonies and evidence presented during the prosecution's case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments by the defense challenging the prosecution evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court analysis of the evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. discussion of the relationship between the victim and the accused. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. importance of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. (Para 56) |
| 8. final judgment and the basis for acquittal of the accused. (Para 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT:
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
The aforesaid appeals have been filed against the common Judgment and Order dated 16/07/2019, passed in Sessions Case No.29/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. Thereby, except for the charge of Sections 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the Appellants have been held guilty and convicted of the charge under Sections 302, 376 (2) (g), 201 and 34 of IPC. Hence, the learned Judge sentenced them as under:-
2. The Appellants namely – Lakhya Sargar (Cril. Appeal. No.
102/2020); Anuj Pawar (
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent testimonies and weak circumstantial evidence.
The court confirmed death sentences for multiple accused involved in a brutal highway dacoity resulting in murder, emphasizing the need for severe punishment in heinous crimes.
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Admissibility of electronic evidence – There is a complete procedure envisaged under Section 65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act wherein production of certificate has been held to be mandatory with certai....
In cases involving murder during robbery, the court established criminal conspiracy and affirmed death sentences for the heinousness of the offences while highlighting the importance of both aggravat....
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
