Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, RAJESH SEKHRI
Raj Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Sekhri, J.
01. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2016, propounded by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (fort short, “the trial court”) in file No. 28/Challan titled “State vs. Raj Kumari”, vide which, appellant came to be convicted for offence under Section 302 of Ranbir Panel Code, 1989, [“RPC”], and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in the payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
02. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on multiple grounds, however, before the grounds urged in the memo of appeal are adverted to, it shall be apt to have a bird's eye view of the background facts of the case.
03. The prosecution story, as unfurled from the charge sheet, is that on 24.10.2012, PW Jaswant Singh lodged an oral report in Police Station, Kathua, alleging inter alia that during the intervening night of 23rd/24th of October 2012, while his aunt namely, Soma Devi, who was residing in ward no. 10, Kathua was asleep, some unknown persons trespassed into her house, killed her and was
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; failure to prove the last seen theory and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal.
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.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The judgment underscores that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
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 principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused, with no reasonable doubt remaining, was emphasized, highlighting the necessity for the prose....
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
