Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Bisahu Ram Hidko S/o Sukhram Hidko – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in S.T. No.27/2016 whereby and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below:-
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| Under Section 302/34 IPC | R.I. for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional S.I. for 03 years. |
| Under Section 364 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine amount to further undergo additional S.I. for 02 years |
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently
2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellants is that on 13.12.2015, Gokulram (PW-1), husband of deceased, lodged a oral report in police station Manpur to the effect that on 11.12.2015, he had gone in search of job on cycle and when on 12.12.2015 at around 2.00 pm, he returned his home he found that his wife (since deceased) was not present in the house. Upon inquiring from his son Pramod whereabouts of deceased, he showed his ignorance. Thereafter, Gokulram (PW-1) went to
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction under IPC Section 302 cannot rely solely on circumstantial evidence of 'last seen together' without corroboration; mere suspicion is insufficient for guilt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient.
A conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence, such as 'last seen together', requires a complete chain of evidence and cannot depend solely on suspicion or uncorroborated statements....
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
Circumstantial evidence alone, without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; inconsistencies in witness testimonies weaken the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence alone, including last seen theory, is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
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
