Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SANGEETA SHARMA
Pranvendra Singh @ Sonu, S/o Shri Virendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details of appellants (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue lack of evidence and motive (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's assessment of the last seen evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. issues regarding the recovery of the knife (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. concerns about the car's involvement and recovery (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. motive not established, prior jurisprudence applied (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. final judgment and acquittal of appellants (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
1.These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 16, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.01/2018 (33/2015) whereby, the accused- appellants (for brevity, ‘the appellants’) have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Section 302 /34 IPC :- Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- each; in default whereof, two months’ additional imprisonment.
Under Section 120 -B IPC :- Two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each; in default whereof, one month’s additional imprisonment.
2. Sentences to run concurrently.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that ba
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete and unbroken chain of proof to establish guilt; mere conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for alternative hypotheses of innocence....
The sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, abscondence, and recovery of evidence, in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Last seen theory not to be true, motive was not proved, recovery of firearm was doubtful, material contradictions found in evidence rendered and no sufficient link to come to irresisti....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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.
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
