IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Kusumlal Sao S/o. Chakradhar Sao – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO PS Baramkela – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.
4. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2019, whereby the appellant/accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstances; mere conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the application of legal principles o....
The mere recovery of a body from an accused's statement is insufficient for conviction under murder charges; corroborative evidence is essential.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where mental health concerns can significantly impact culpability.
Circumstantial evidence must form a conclusive chain linked to the accused, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no viable alternative explanations for innocence.
The court established that the appellant's act was of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC due to absence of premeditation and actions taken in heat of passion.
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
Murder conviction upheld on eye-witness testimony of coordinated sharp weapon and firearm assault, corroborated by medical/ballistic evidence and circumstances; weapon recovery under Evidence Act Sec....
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused and that they exclude every other ....
(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....
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.