DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA, ANISH DAYAL
Ashok Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's claim of false implication due to rent dispute. (Para 3) |
| 2. prosecution relies on forensic evidence linking appellant to the crime. (Para 4) |
| 3. evidence establishes the appellant's guilt in homicide. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. verdict confirms conviction and dismissal of appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2018 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 02nd June, 2018 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine) for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The Incident:
2. On 29th August, 2011 dead bodies of two minor children were found on the second floor of the House No.H-1/393, H-1 Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi where the appellant was staying as a tenant of the father of PW-1, the complainant. On the basis of DD No.23A, SI Brij Bhushan (PW-20) and Constable Satbir (PW-6) reached the place of incident and discovered that the two children had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by their father where they were declar
The court affirmed that when a murder occurs in the defendant's premises, the burden of proof shifts to them to explain the circumstances, which in this case confirmed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on consistent testimonies of child witnesses and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence lead to acquittal.
The prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including motive, presence at the crime scene, and weapon recovery, justifying the convictio....
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.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on conclusive evidence, and critical gaps in circumstantial evidence can lead to acquittal.
An offence like murder committed inside secrecy of a house, initial burden to establish case would undoubtedly be upon prosecution.
The principles of the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt for murder were affirmed.
The court confirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and recovery of weapon and stolen items are sufficient to uphold convictions under IPC sections for murder and robbery.
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.