SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY AGRAWAL
Devlal Nishad, S/o late Ram Kishun – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhakhara – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the sole appellant herein has preferred this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-7-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Kurud, District Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No.61/2017, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for murder of his wife under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years & pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22-8-2017 at 11:00 a.m., at Village Tarragondi, Police Station Bhakhara, District Dhamtari, the appellant strangulated his wife Smt. Tarabai Nishad with the help of a rope and in order to screen himself from the offence, hanged the dead body and thereby committed the offence. Thereafter, the appellant himself reported the matter to the police purs
Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
The trial Court's failure to put material circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constituted a serious irregularity, warranting the acquittal of the appellant o....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The prosecution must discharge its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases requires careful consideration.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
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 burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, when meeting the five golden principles, can lead to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The invocation of Section 106 of t....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.