MUKTA GUPTA, ANISH DAYAL
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The above captioned appeals impugn the judgment dated 26th December, 2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and have been awarded life imprisonment vide order on sentence dated 11th January, 2017 with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The fine so realised was directed to be given to the wife and children of the deceased.
The Incident:
2. The facts in brief, as culled out from the documents and Trial Court's Record are as under:
(ii) Stateme
Both appellants and deceased were not located along the same towers during the period when his wife last saw him around noon and the evening when she received an SMS on her mobile.
The duty of the Appellate Court to independently assess the evidence and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on complete and reliable circumstantial evidence.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for alternative hypotheses of innocence....
When other evidence are available, non-examination of witness is inconsequential.
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
A conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence requires that all links in the evidence chain conclusively point to the accused's guilt without reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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.