Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Jitendra @ Chandi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Songara, J. - Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Tijara District Alwar, in Sessions Case No.06/2017, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence U/s. | Imprisonment | Fine | Sentence in default of payment |
302 I.P.C | Life imprisonment | Rs.5000/- | To further undergo two months simple imprisonment. |
201 I.P.C. | Five years rigorous imprisonment | Rs.5000/- | To further undergo two months simple imprisonment |
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- Complainant - Kushal Singh (PW-3) had submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/5) to the S.H.O. Police Station Tapukada District Alwar alleging therein that Seema daughter of Makhan Singh, was married to Jitendra. After marriage, Jitendra used to beat Seema, as a result of which she came to the residence of her Mausi (maternal- aunt). Jite
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evid....
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.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and the use of circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of exp....
The judgment underscores that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In circumstantial evidence cases without eyewitnesses, conviction unsustainable if chain incomplete due to hostile seizure witnesses, recovery contradictions, and improper reliance on s.161 CrPC stat....
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
