Back
RAMESH SINHA, BIBHU DATTA GURU
Bhojraj Nand S/o Makhansai Nand – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the above-captioned appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment and since common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 159/2018, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one year additional R.I. (each appellants) and rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months additional R.I. (each appellants) with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 16.04.2018, complainant Manoj Pandey lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-3) before DD Naga
In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that are consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot....
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
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 prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
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....
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
