Back
MUKTA GUPTA, POONAM A. BAMBA
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction vide judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 22nd August, 2019 for murder of one Shivnath @ Lambu ("deceased"); and also the order on sentence dated 27th August, 2019, wherein the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for 1 year for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
2. Briefly the case of prosecution is that on 5th November, 2015, at about 8:00 am, Prahlad Kumar (PW-20) went to galli in front of H.No.59 at Village Bhadola, and found one sack lying there with the body of one unknown person. Thereafter, he made a call at number 100 which was recorded vide DD No.9PP (Ex. PW-4/A). SI Devi Lal (PW-28) reached at the spot and found legs of a male visible from one sack lying there. He called the crime team and on opening the said sack, dead body of one male, covered in a blanket and bed sheet tied with orange colour rope, was found. The dead body was wearing a grey colour T-shirt, sky blue shorts and there were injuries marks on the neck behind the ear of the said
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....
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their special knowledge, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse infer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
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 ....
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
