Back
RAMESH SINHA, BIBHU DATTA GURU
Nazir Khan S/o Mushtak Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the aforesaid five criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 4.1.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.24/2017, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Nazir Khan (A1), Om Prakash Jaat @ Prakash Jaat (A2), Patul @ Abdul Majid (A3), Deepak Lohar (A4), Surendra Lohar (A5) and Vijay Kumar Jatt (A6) have preferred these five criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 4.1.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.24/2017, by which the trial Court has convicted appellants Nazir Khan and Patul @ Abdul Majid for offence under Sections 302 (two times) read with section 120B, 201 and 394 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months on each counts, RI for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and RI for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and confessions made in police c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and no part of it is admissible under ....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable without a complete chain of evidence, and undue delay in handling forensic samples raises integrity concerns.
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to ....
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
