Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Sanwarmal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
The facts as noted by this Court are that on 24.02.2022 at about 9 PM, it is reported by the neighbours that Geeta Devi (mother of the deceased child) complained that her son was being hurt by her brother-in-law. It has also been reported that on the next day, Vikas (elder son of Geeta Devi) and Pooja (daughter of Geeta Devi) came and told that their uncle (Chacha) along with their mother had killed their younger brother and the blood stained premises was apparent. The information was given to the police, upon which, police began searching Geeta Devi and her brother-in-law - Sanwarmal (present appellant).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that upon receiving information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, dead body of the child was recovered from the cremation ground during investigation and postmortem was also conducted. He submits that information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant because the cremation was at a demarcated place and thus, it cannot be said to be an information exclusively within the domain of the accused. He further submits that there were several prosecution witnesses but all the eye-witnesses turned hostile except fo
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witnesses and motive in criminal cases, allowing suspension of sentence due to inherent doubts in the prosecution's case.
Suspension of sentence granted due to inherent doubts in prosecution's case, particularly the absence of key witnesses and lack of motive.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and confession, with the court emphasizing the necessity for the accused to explain circumstances surrounding the crime where the victim ....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
Circumstantial evidence must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt, with the burden shifting to the accused after the prosecution proves its case.
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the death penalty.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the last seen principle and confessions reinforcing the conviction.
Murder – Evidence under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in conviction.
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
