Back
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Brijesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
(Order on application for leave to appeal)
1. Heard Shri Ratan Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant - State of U.P., on the application under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred to as "Cr.P.C.") seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 352 of 2016, acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges of committing offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in Case Crime No. 265 of 2014, Police Station Chhataari, District Bulandshahr.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 16.08.2014 Ashok Kumar gave information (Exhibit A-1) to the police that his son (Sanna) had committed suicide at his home on the same day. No one is guilty for it, yet to ascertain the cause of his death, a post-mortem examination be conducted. On 25.08.2014, the informant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (Exhibit A-2) stating that his son Sanna used to work in Gujarat alongwith Brijesh (the respondent
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with ....
The judgment establishes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and a clear motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the significance of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.....
For conviction under Section 306 IPC, prosecution must prove intentional conduct by accused that instigated victim to commit suicide, supported by credible evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in criminal cases, particularly where direct evidence is absent.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the totality of circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and the absence of a clear motive does not undermine the prosecution's case if ....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the duty of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and the consideration of the appellant's mental condition in criminal 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
