Back
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Surinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstantial evidence establishes crime. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. last-seen theory and recovery of items key to proving the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 24) |
| 3. appellant's conviction under ipc sections confirmed through evidence. (Para 9) |
| 4. accused's admission and identification perks prosecution. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments addressed regarding evidentiary challenges faced by the prosecution. (Para 16) |
| 6. circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction despite missing body. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 35) |
| 7. last-seen evidence crucial for conviction. (Para 18 , 19 , 26) |
| 8. possession of murder weapon substantiates guilt. (Para 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 9. judgment dismissal based on strong evidence. (Para 77 , 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, 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 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....
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.
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
