Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUDHIR SINGH, KARAMJIT SINGH
Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sudhir Singh, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of CRA-D-118-2019, CRA-D-1107-DB-2018, CRA-S-2982-SB-2018, CRA-S-3153-SB 2018 and CRA-S-3154-SB-2018 together as all the appeals, have arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
2. Vide judgment and order dated 12/18.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 412 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Besides this, appellants, namely, Ranjit, Shankar, Bablu and Gautam have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 IPC along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 457 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in defau
The court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence despite non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding electronic records.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain pointing to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the statutory requirements for defining dacoity under Section 399 of IPC, highlighting the need for the prosecution to establish t....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
The prosecution must prove intent and preparation beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence armed does not constitute guilt without corroborative evidence.
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
Listen Article