Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Raju @ Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Shri Samartha Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Munnuri Laxman, J.) :
1) The present criminal appeal assails the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi on the file of Sessions Case No.25/2015 (19/2013), whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.
2) The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that Deva Ram (PW-2), the elder brother of the deceased-Samartha Ram lodged a report under Exhibit-P/1 stating that Samartha Ram and his wife Baby Devi had three sons i.e. Dalpat Ram, Prema Shankar and Raju. All the sons reside in Mumbai. The younger son Raju came to the parents 20-25 days prior to the incident and ever since, he had been staying with them. On 07.02.2013 at about 10:00 p.m. on receipt of information about murder of his brother Samartha Ram and sister-in-law Baby, he went to the house of the deceased and found that they were lying dead in the pool of blood and the wounds were fresh. The blood was still oozing out from the injuries a
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The trial Court's failure to put material circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constituted a serious irregularity, warranting the acquittal of the appellant o....
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 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....
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances to exclude every reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the a....
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
