Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Appellant
Versus
Major Viveki Rai S/O Sh. Bishwanath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Oswal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.11.2008, recorded by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short "the Trial Court‟), whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC read with Section 30 Arms Act .
2. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence, more particularly the statements made by the Lieutenant Colonel K. K. Punn, who had categorically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the weapon of offence was in the hands of the respondent. Learned AAG has further argued that the statement of Dr. Karamveer Singh clearly proves that the injuries were not self-inflicted and further, that FSL expert S. H. Bukhari has clearly stated in the crime scene that range of fire was four to five feet from the muzzle of the carbine. He has further laid stress that the prosecution had proved the motive also on part of the respondent to commit heinous offence of murder of his wife, but the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidenc
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, and the presumption of innocence remains strong in acquittals.
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased sustained any firearm injuries, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if evidence allows for two reasonable conclusions, the one favoring the accused prevails.
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Eyewitness testimony and dying declarations of the victim were sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case, despite the absence of established motive.
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and the establishment of motive are crucial in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent with guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence for a valid conviction.
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
