Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
Akhilesh Vishwakarma S/o Sarju Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Goutam Bhaduri, J
Heard.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 20/01/2020 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.21/2017 whereby Akhilesh Vishwakarma (A/1) & Ramesh Dewangan (A/2) have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 302/34 of IPC | For life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine 6-6 months additional imprisonment |
| Under Section 201/34 of IPC | R.I. for 3-3 Years and fine of Rs.1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine 1-1 month additional R.I. |
Whereas Ramesh @ Guddu Vishwakarma (A/3) and Usha Vishwakarma (A/4) have been convicted under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3-3 Years and fine of Rs.1000-1000/-, in default of payment of fine 1-1 month additional R.I.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the dead body of deceased Karamdev Vishwakarma was found on 30/10/2016 at a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to conclusively and consistently point towards the guilt of the accused, as well as the need to conside....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
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
