Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
ARJUNBHAI KANTIBHAI NAYAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case no. 4 of 2013, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (‘G.P. Act’ in short).
2. At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act and was sentenced as under:
| Sections | Punishment | Fine | In default |
| Section 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs. 1,000/- | SI for one month |
| Section 135 of G.P. Act | SI for fifteen days | -- | -- |
Learned Trial Court directed to undergo both the sentences concurrently.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this appeal are as under:
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on established circumstantial evidence, affirming that all necessary conditions for such conviction were met.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a conclusive chain linked to the accused, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no viable alternative explanations for innocence.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court held that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly point to guilt, which was not established in this case.
There was no eye witness as to actual assault on body of deceased which lead to her death and as such, it can be said that conviction of appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
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
