Back
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, KHATIM REZA
Saroj Kuer – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2014 and the order of sentence dated 29.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2010/67 of 2010, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—
| Convicted under Sections | Sentence Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code | Life | 10,000/- | Three months simple imprisonment |
| 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code | Five years rigorous imprisonment | 3,000/- | Two months simple imprisonment |
The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. P.W.-4, Shanti Kunwar, is the informant of Barauli P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009 and is the widow of the deceased. Her written
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence and poisoning. The judgmen....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in criminal cases, particularly where direct evidence is absent.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
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
