Back
RAMESH SINHA, RAJANI DUBEY
Janki Yadav S/o Haraklal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, in Sessions Case No. R-11/2016, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 30 days, RI for ten years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 30 days and RI for five years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.10.2015 at 2 p.m. at Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur, the appellant/ accused kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her at Makhaphaker nursery forest where he committed forcefully intercourse with her and thereafter killed her and tried to disappear the evidence. Missing repo
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof under section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, falls upon accused to prove his innocence.
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
