Back
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND
Rajendra Rabidas – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
Heard the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Soumya S. Pandey and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2005 by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur by whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Appellant no.1 has already served the sentence and has been released on bail and appellant no. 3 is dead.
3. Amicus Curiae submits that there is no evidence to convict the appellants. She submits that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. She submits that though the death of the deceased is homicidal and is in the matrimonial home yet there is no corroborative evidence of demand of any money by these appellants. Neither the informant who is brother of the deceased nor the father of the deceased has been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution has not brought any material to suggest the presence of these appellants at the place of occurrence i.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.
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....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201.
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
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
