Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Bhagwan Lal And Ors. S/o Jagiram Dahariya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise from the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2015, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.
2. Both these criminal appeals preferred by the respective appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.40/2006 by the Special Sessions Judge, Jajgir-Champa, by which the appellants stand convicted & sentenced as under:-
(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2004, a local fair (Raut Madai Bazaar) was being held at Chandipara, Pamgarh. On that night, Mahesh Khare (Guruji), along with Tulsi and Surendra Singh (a liquor distillery employee), went to the distillery to consume liquor. The next day, 10.12.2004, Mahesh Khare (Guruji) went missing, which caused considerable concern among his relatives and the local community. As a result, a large number of people gathered at Pamgarh Police Station. Police started investigating by questioning Tulsi, Surendra Sing
A mere presence in a mob does not equate to liability for criminal acts unless it is proven that the individual contributed to or shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The conviction of accused cannot be sustained when circumstantial evidence lacks cogent linkage to the crime, and eyewitness testimony is deemed unreliable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Though for applicability of Section 149, there need not be a prior meeting of mind. Even mere presence in the unlawful assembly, with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes such a person ....
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete and cogent chain linking the accused to the crime; mere suspicion, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, is insufficient for conviction.
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
