Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
Bharat – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentence details. (Para 1) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding lack of evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. state argument on victim's statements and evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. details of the victim's statements and injury evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. burden of proof as per section 106 of the evidence act. (Para 12) |
| 6. analysis of circumstantial evidence leading to conviction. (Para 14) |
| 7. final dismissal of appeals and conclusion. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By these two appeals, the appellants challenge the common impugned judgment dated 5th May, 2017 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 326-A/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 26th May, 2017 whereby they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs each, in default whereof to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment. The fine so imposed is to be given to the victim as compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Bharat submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Trial Court by shifting the burden of proof on the accused, though it was the prosecution which w
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence can support claims in absence of direct identification.
The burden of proof on the accused, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the use of chain of circumstances to establish the offence beyond reasonable dou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies, medical evidence, and the appellant's history of harassment to establish guilt and determine the appropriate sentence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere testimony of the victim is insufficient without corroboration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on convincing and trustworthy oral and medical evidence to affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of acid....
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take t....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in victim testimonies can lead to acquittal in serious crimes.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases where motive and identity are crucial 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
