Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Rakesh Kainthla
Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and order dated 28.11.2019 vide which they were sentenced as under:
| Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC | To suffer imprisonment for life, pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years. |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. |
| Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. | |
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the co
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct 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.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime, and any reliance on unreliability of recovery evidence warrants the benef....
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – If finding of guilt is returned without properly evaluating and testing evidence by applying requisite legal principles, it can always be corrected by Supreme Court in e....
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
The court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must connect all links beyond reasonable doubt and that possession of stolen items without explanation infers guilt.
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
