PANKAJ BHANDARI, ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The appellant has preferred instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C aggrieved against the judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions case No.28/2016, whereby the appellantJagdish has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Offence Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of Payment of Fine |
302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | 5,000/- | One month RI |
2. Skeleton facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are as under:-
'On 19.08.2016, the FIR bearing No.185/2016 (Ex.P-8) was registered at Police Station Modak, District, Kota on the basis of the written report (Ex.P.42) submitted by Babu Lal (PW-2). In the report, he alleged that he is resident of Mahaveer Colony, Modak. They are three brothers. Yesterday, on the day of 'Rakshbandhan', his wife Badam Bai and children Pooja and Vishan were at home. His mother Sita Bai and Jagdish were also at home. On the same day, at about 2:30 PM, Pappu, son of his brother-in-law Bhanwarlal came on a motor cycle to take his wife. His wife Badam Bai and daughter Pooja went with Pappu to his matrimonial
Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890
Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350
Brijesh Mavi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2012) 7 SCC 45
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193
Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446
Eradu and Ors. vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063
Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0919/2011 : (2011) 13 SCC 621
Nizam & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan : (2016) 1 SCC 550
Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79
Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 11 SCC 261
State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram 2003 8 SCC 180
State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
State of U.P. vs. Ram Balak & Anr. 2008 13 SCALE 541
State of U.P. vs. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224
Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0740/2012 : (2012) 11 SCC 205
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/8543/2006 : (2006) 10 SCC 681
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
Circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, can establish guilt in murder cases when direct evidence is unavailable.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
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.