Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sarve Oraon, S/o Late Mahu Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Ragini Kumari and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin and Mrs. Priya Shrestha.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2017, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, which have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in fact, as per the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, when there are no eye witnesses to the said occurrence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the chain of the circumstances should be complete and each of the circumstances should be conclusive in nature which should only point towards the guilt of the appellant. Only on the ground that there was marital dis
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the burden on the accused to explain circumstances surrounding th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable dou....
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in homicide cases even without proof of motive, provided a complete chain of evidence is presented.
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence was overturned due to the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the unreliability of the confession.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot so....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
Point of Law : Common intention contemplated by Section 34 IPC pre-supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds.
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
