Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Lala – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose off two criminal appeals, i.e., CRA-D-652-DB of 2004 titled as “Lala Vs. State of Haryana”, and CRA-D-366-SB of 2005 titled as "Irshad Vs. State of Haryana" whereby, the appellants have challenged the common impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2004, vide which, the appellants were convicted for the commission of the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 302 IPC alongwith default stipulation. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 201 IPC alongwith default stipulation.
2. The FIR Ex.PA/1 in the present case was registred on the basis of the complaint Ex.PA moved by Hukam Chand son of Moti Ram and the same has been reproduced below:-
“To
The S.H.O.
P.S.City Palwal.
Sub: regarding missing of driver Ganga Ram and maruti car No. HR-29A/0077 from 30.1.2003.
Sir,
I Hukam Chand s/o Sh. Moti Ram caste Nai am resident of Saini Nagar ward No. 10. My brother Ganga Ram aged about 27 years used to work as driver on the private vehicle of Mahesh Kumar Jain s
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
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
