Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Umesh Sharma, S/o. Late Babulal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
We have heard Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 19.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2012 arising out of Manihari P.S. Case No. 167 of 2011. By order dated 21.04.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The deceased/Parwati Devi was allegedly killed at the hands of her husband/appellant and other in-laws on 25.10.2011 in her house. She had been married to the appellant for eight years and had given birth to two daughters, who are still residing with the appellant. The information about the killing of the deceased was first received by Nandlal Sharma, her brother who has been examined as P.W. 6 at the trial. He lodged the FIR on 25.10.2011 at about 01:20 P.M. alleging that on 24.10.2011, when he had met his sister, she had disclosed t
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
The trial Court's failure to put material circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constituted a serious irregularity, warranting the acquittal of the appellant o....
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
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
