Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
DINESH @ GUDDU GOPIRAM SAKHVAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2012. The appellant was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment) and fine of Rs 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and in default, to simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sections 302 of the IPC.
The appellant is referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. FACTUAL MATRIX
2.1 From the evidence on record it appears that the deceased Rachna was married to Rakeshsinh Nahneram Prajapati and they were residing in Surat along with Veerusinh Nahneram Prajapati - the brother of Rakeshsinh, Santosh - the brother of the deceased and their friend Dinesh @ Guddu (the accused). The incident occurred on 27.03.2012 and at that time, Rakeshsinh - the husband of the deceased
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this case.
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Circumstantial evidence - It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish all pieces of incrimin....
Reliance can be based on solitary statement of a witness if court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires irrefutable proof establishing guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
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
