Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Anil Kumar @ Shetty – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur (learned Trial Court) vide which, the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201, 404 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and order dated 01.04.2022 vide which he was sentenced as under:-
| Under Section 302 of IPC | To suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. |
| Under Section 201 of IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substances were ordered to run currently.[Deleted vide order dated 29.11.2024] |
| Under Section 404 of IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. [Added vide order dated 29.11.2024] |
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the accused's guilt to uphold a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
(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....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot substitute for evidence in criminal cases.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
(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....
In cases where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and su....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt; isolated pieces of evidence are insufficient for conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of circumstances and reliable evidence to prove guilt in a case 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
