TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 11.01.2018 and sentence order dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.14NL/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/. In case of failure to pay fine amount, the appellant has further been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 20.04. 2013 at about 1.30 P.M., Madho Ram Mehta (PW1), President Gram Panchayat Madhala, noticed a human dead body lying in a rivulet at place Sansiwala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. PW1 was also accompanied by another person named Ram Niranjan at the relevant time. He telephonically informed Police Station Baddi. Police arrived at the spot and found an unidentified dead body between the stones/boulders in the bed of rivulet. Injuries were found on the back and front side of the head of the body, which appeared to have been c
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224)
Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)
Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621)
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350)
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316)
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446)
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79)
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1396
Ramesh Bahi and another vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180)
State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261)
The judgment established the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be conclusive and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, especially in cases based on circumstantial evi....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The absence of motive is an important facto....
(1) Murder – No conviction can be recorded on assumption. (2) Absence of motive may not be a determinative factor, yet it is an important link to complete chain of circumstance.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.