Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2014, whereby the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story are that on 10.12.2013 at about 7:30 P.M., at Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Banjar, District Kullu, when Layak Ram was taking dinner in his house, mother of the accused, Smt. Hima Devi came there and told him that her son, i.e. the accused, had severely beaten Ramu Paledar inside the Gharat (water mill) owned by one Chuni Lal and blood was oozing out from the mouth of Ramu. Accordingly, Layak Ram telephonically informed the police authorities of Police Station Banjar about the occurrence having been disclosed to him by the mother of the accused, on the basis of which, rapat was entered in Police Station Banjar. Immediately thereafter the po
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot substitute for evidence in criminal cases.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be conclusively proven, leaving no gaps in the evidence chain for a conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the accused's guilt to uphold a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The court held that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly point to guilt, which was not established in this case.
In circumstantial evidence appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse; prosecution must prove complete chain excluding other hypotheses, with double presumption favouring accused.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime 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
