Back
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Surinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on circumstantial evidence due to absence of body. (Para 12) |
| 2. defenses related to evidence lack support and prosecution's evidence was reliable. (Para 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 3. final ruling upholds conviction based on extensive circumstantial evidence. (Para 21 , 41 , 79) |
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2018, vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 309 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and he was sentenced as under:-
Sr. No. | Sections under which the conviction was recorded | Sentence imposed |
1. | Section 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years. |
2. | Section 201 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months |
3. | Section 309 of IPC | Simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
(Parties
The court established that circumstantial evidence, including last seen, recovery of blood, and belongings of the victim, justifies conviction in absence of the body, shifting burden to the accused t....
Circumstantial evidence, including last-seen accounts and forensic links, can establish guilt in murder cases even without a body, emphasizing the burden on the accused to explain incriminating facts....
The application of the last seen doctrine and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act in establishing the guilt of the accused in a murder case.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
In circumstantial evidence appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse; prosecution must prove complete chain excluding other hypotheses, with double presumption favouring accused.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused's explanation, if consistent with the facts, can lead to acquittal.
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
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
