Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Chagan Lal Jat – Appellant
Versus
State, Through P. p. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur, in Sessions Case 06/2017 (CIS No. 30/2017) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Suresh kumar & Anr.), whereby the present accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine |
| 302/34 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- (each of the appellants),in default of which, to undergo further three months R.I. (each of the appellants) |
| 397/34 IPC | 7 years R.I. | Rs.5000/- (each of the appellants), in default of which, to undergo further 15 days R.I. (each of the appellants) |
| 460 IPC | 10 years R.I. | Rs.10,000/- (each of the appellants), in default of which, to undergo further one |
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony, even with minor inconsistencies, can substantiate a conviction for murder when corroborated by other evidence.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the accused's guilt.
The necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of establishing a clear connection between the accused and the....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction.
The recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non to convict the accused when there is direct evidence in the form of eye witnesses.
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
