Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Mohit @ Monu S/o Harkesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2023 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Gangapur City in Session Case No.01/2021 (hereinafter, “trial Court”) convicted the appellants-Priyanka & Mohit @ Monu under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “ IPC ”) and sentenced them as under:-
| Accused Appellant | Offence | Sentence | Sentence in Default |
| Priyanka | Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- | 06 months of Simple Imprisonment |
| Mohit @ Monu | Section 449 of IPC | 05 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- | 03 Months of Simple Imprisonment |
| Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- | 06 Months of Simple Imprisonment |
2. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, it would be relevant to succinctly outline the pertinent facts and allegations levelled against the appellants and the appropriate evidence led by the prosecution.
Factual Aspects: -
3. PW-1 Hukam Singh, lodged a written complaint, Exhibit P-1
The court affirmed the conviction of the defendants based on established evidence including eyewitness accounts and forensic links to the crime, despite challenges regarding witness reliability and p....
Double strangulation murder on circumstantial evidence: unbroken chain (motive-honour killing via pregnancy, presence via calls, failed alibi, no S.106 explanation) rules out suicide absent contrivan....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in homicide cases, particularly when the accused fail to provide a credible explanation for events that occurred in their vicinity.
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
The judgment underscores that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events leading to guilt, with comprehensive corroboration against multiple hypot....
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
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
