Back
Umesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. This appeal is by the accused Umesh Yadav challenging his conviction in Sessions Trial No.198 of 2012 under Section 302 read with section 201 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC & ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, together with fine of Rs.20,000/- and for failure to pay fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a term of one year. He has also been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and failure to pay fine would result in simple imprisonment of six months. The punishments are to run concurrently. Appellant, however, has been acquitted of the charges under section 498-A, 304-B IPC & ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Facts giving rise to the appellant’s implication in the aforesaid is the lodgement of First Information Report in Case Crime No.605 of 2011 as per which the informant Malkhan Singh married his daughter Reena to the appellant nearly three years back after payment of adequate dowry. It is alleged that the appellant
Point of law : It is clearly discernable that for a conviction to stand on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the....
The judgment underscores the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and highlights the importance of proving....
Point of Law : Any weakness in the defence case would not obviate the prosecution from establishing the charge based on circumstantial evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Murder – Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and guilt of accused have to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.(2) Burden of Proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines “evidence”, broadly divided into oral and documentary. “Evidence” under the Act is the means, factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logic....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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
