Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Md. Alauddin S/o Md. Jabbar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Raja Ram Rai, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 446 of 2015 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No. 111 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/-.
Prosecution Case
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, namely, Gajendra Thakur (PW-8) alleged in his written report that on 19.04.2015 after having dinner, he along with hi
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and compelling chain pointing towards guilt; motive alone is insufficient for conviction without solid proof.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
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
