Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ
Domendra Ojha S/o Jagdev Ojha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Judgment :
(Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.)
1) Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2015 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.81/2015, whereby they have been convicted for murder of their niece- Bhuneshwari and nephew-Mohan under Section 302 (two counts) of IPC and each of them have been sentenced for the rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, they have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that one Ghanshyam Ojha lodged the merg intimations (Ex.P-1 & P-2) on 11.05.2015 at 14.50 hours before the Police Station-Utai (Machandur), District Durg, alleging, inter alia, that on the said date, around 7 AM, he had gone to Mines along with Jagnu Dhimar and Gurudayal for doing labour work and his wife-Renu and mother- Gangotri Ojha had also gone for their labour work, while his two children, namely, Ku. Bhuneshwari and Mohan, aged about 6 years and 3 years, respectively, were at home along with his younger brother-Domendra Ojha and daughter-in-law (y
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion and circumstantial evidence without corroboration are insufficient for conviction.
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.
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....
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
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 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's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and the use of circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of exp....
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their special knowledge, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse infer....
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
