Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Kishun Sao, S/o. Late Amrit Sao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
This Death Reference and the connected Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2021 and order of sentence dated 25.03.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma convicted the appellants under sections 302/34, 201/511 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further SI for one year for the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, further SI for 3 months for the charge under section 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Based on the circumstantial evidence these appellants have been convicted. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the deposition of the defence witnesses and also of PW2 who had stated that the deceased had committed suicide. He argued that the appellants Sitaram Sao and Parwati Devi who are the uncle and aunt of the deceased do not reside with them, thus there are no
The court established that circumstantial evidence and motive for honour killing justified the conviction for murder, while mitigating factors led to the commutation of the death penalty to life impr....
Point of Law : Any weakness in the defence case would not obviate the prosecution from establishing the charge based on circumstantial evidence.
The established principle is that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent to affirm the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
Persistent dowry demands and cruel treatment resulted in the presumption of guilt for murder; circumstantial evidence and statutory presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applied.
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, relying on clear circumstantial evidence while providing plausible alternative explanations.
The burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act was a central legal principle established in the judgment, placing the onus on the appellant to explain the circumstances of the deceased's d....
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
