Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI
Mohd. Shamim Ansari S/o Late Mohd. Karim – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2020 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in ST No.45/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 & 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for Life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; RI for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that both the appellants namely, Mohd. Shamim and Mohd. Saddam were annoyed for the reason that some evidence was adduced by Mithlesh (deceased) against them in a criminal case. On 7.2.2019 at about 3 pm, both the appellants came on motorcycle to the house of the deceased and forcefully taken Mithlesh (deceased) on their motorcycle and subsequently abducted him, which was seen by Ramu Kurmi, Lalchand Kurmi and Harvansh Kurmi. Mithlesh (deceased) was searched, but he was not found and on the next day i.e. 8.2.2019, dead body of Mithlesh, aged about 15 years, was found near canal at NH-43. The accused/appellants were subs
The court upheld the conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the reliability of related witnesses and the 'chain link theory' in establishing guilt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear chain of proof that excludes the possibility of innocence; mere suspicion is insufficient for legal conviction.
Conviction for murder can be established based on credible eyewitness testimonies, even without independent witness support. The burden to explain incriminating circumstances lies with the accused.
merely a witness is closely related to a victim of crime does not ipso facto makes him an interested witness.
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
