Back
MUKTA GUPTA, ANISH DAYAL
Parvez @ Tantrik @ Sonu @ Radhey – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. - By these two appeals the appellants challenge the impugned judgment dated 26th October, 2017 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 365/302/201/34 IPC as also the order on sentence dated 30th October, 2017 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ?5000/- each under Section 302 IPC, in default whereof to undergo two years simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of ?3000/- each under Section 365 IPC, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to undergo imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and a fine of ?2000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned conviction contends that the very genesis of the case of the prosecution is shrouded with grave suspicion since Salma, wife of the deceased, did not disclose the involvement of the appellants at the earliest opportunity on 7th April, 2012 and even thereafter despit
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Under Section 299 of IPC, homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates life of another in a blameworthy manner.
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts before the burden of proof shifts to the accused. Failure to provide a reasonable explanation can be an additional link in the chain of incriminating cir....
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction when it demonstrates motive, opportunity, and establishes a clear temporal connection between the accused and the crime.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellant was not established based on circumstantial evidence.
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.
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
