Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, VIMAL K. VYAS
Jagatsinh Punjesinh Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) emanates from the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2014 convicting the appellant-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him for life imprisonment.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as under.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.04.2015 at about 17:25 hours, the accused has murdered his children (minor) by administering poison in tea, biscuits and water. The complaint was given by the wife PW-1, Dakshaben Jagatsinh Parmar and the trial Court, after examination of 21 witnesses and documentary evidence has convicted the appellant and sentenced, as mentioned hereinabove.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
4. Learned advocate Mr. Patadiya has submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the serious offence like murder without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. He has submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and mo
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on medical evidence and witness testimonies, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime despite the complainant's contradictory statements.
It would always be open for prosecution to decide on quality and quantity of evidence that they wish to lead in order to establish charge and this Court cannot comment on such aspect of matter, as lo....
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child witness can be credible and sufficient for conviction, supported by corroborative forensic evidence, establishing homicide over suicide.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in criminal cases, particularly where direct evidence is absent.
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
Murder - Testimony of sole child witness - There is no age limit fixed for a person to be a competent witness. A child of tender age can also be a competent witness.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even when witnesses turn hostile; circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction if it excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The voluntary and truthful nature of dying declaration and the competency of a child witness to depose are crucial in establishing guilt and determining the appropriate criminal offense.
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
