Back
RAMESH SINHA, RAJANI DUBEY
Mamta Yadav W/o Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, J.
1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 6.7.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod in Sessions Case No. 30/2019, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant-Mamta Yadav has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1204/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 6.7.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod in Sessions Case No. 30/2019, by which she has been convicted for offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days.
3. Appellant-Siddharth Yadav @ Jimmy has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1382/2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 6.7.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod in Sessions Case No. 30/2019, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default of pa
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The main legal point established is the admissibility and relevance of the accused's confessional statement leading to the discovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in establi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases where they have special knowledge of the facts. It also affirms the ad....
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 burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
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
