Back
MUKTA GUPTA, POONAM A. BAMBA
Desh Pal @ Desh Raj – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 14th February, 2019 whereby the appellant was convicted for murder of one Santosh (deceased), who was the wife of the appellant as also the order on sentence dated 16th February, 2019, whereby the appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
2. Briefly as per the prosecution case the appellant was unemployed and was a liquor addict, and used to abuse his wife/deceased daily. On the intervening night of 24th and 25th September, 2014, the appellant stuffed victim's mouth with a cloth and strangulated her to death with a chunni and fled from the spot. The dead body was discovered by the eldest daughter of the appellant and deceased baby Rani (PW-1). When PW-1 found her mother not responding, she untied the knot of the chunni of orange colour, tied around the neck of the deceased and also removed the cloth from her mouth. Thereafter, PW-1 went to her nani's house which was five minutes away and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the accused to explain facts within his knowledge, and the accused's obli....
The burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death and the consequences of offering false explanations.
Circumstantial evidence in domestic murder cases places the burden of explanation on the accused; failure to do so can lead to conviction.
The admissibility of the appellant's conduct and confession under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and the conclusive nature of DNA evidence in establishing guilt.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act can shift to the accused when the prosecution establishes foundational facts and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation ....
The burden of proof on the accused in cases of crimes committed in privacy is comparatively lighter, and the accused has a duty to offer a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.
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
