Back
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Nain Singh S/o Tejram Netam – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Sessions Trial No.69/2012, by which the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the IPC and RI for 3 years and further sentenced to fine of Rs.200/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months under Section 201 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the eve of Ganesh Chaturthi on 06.12.2011 between 12.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at village Darra, the appellant assaulted Santram by kitchen knife, by which Santram suffered serious injury and succumbed to death, thereby the appellant committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and also caused disappearance of evidence and thereby co
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to connect the accused's conduct with the crime committed and the need for such conduct to form part of the evidence. Additionally,....
Section 8 of Evidence Act states as Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct —any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused to establish the offence under Section....
The recovery of evidence must be unimpeachable and not shrouded with elements of doubt to sustain the guilt of the accused.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime; absence of motive and direct evidence renders conviction unsafe.
Acquittal of appellants is affirmed due to insufficient circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting prosecutorial burden of proof in criminal cases.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
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
