Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN
Kaleel Rahman @ Rahman @ Ragu – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMESH, J.
1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced to the following imprisonment, through the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry, dated 13.10.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.70/2008:-
“The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is guilty under Section 302 and 380 IPC and accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.”
2. The aforesaid judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are addressed according to the rank in the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.06.2008 at 09.00 P.M. at Room No.203, Royal Lodge, Maraimalai Adigal Salai, Puducherry, the accused, namely Kaleel Rahman @ Rahman @ Ragu, caused the death of one Selvi, wife of Padmanaban, by i
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links must cohesively establish guilt; doubts in identification and admissibility of evidence impact conviction validity.
Point of law :Circumstantial evidence - prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any othe....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and conclusive chain connecting the accused to the crime, failing which conviction cannot stand.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
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
