Back
MANOJ MISRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI
Raj Kishore @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. We have heard Sri Amit Tripathi for the appellant; Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA, for the State and have perused the record.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No.655 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2003, police station Bagwala, district Etah, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and punished with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-coupled with a default sentence of two years R.I.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
3. The FIR of the case was lodged by Virendra Singh (PW-1) vide written report (Exb.Ka-1) dated 23.07.2003 scribed by Rahees Ahmad (not examined), which was registered as Case Crime No.62 of 2003 at police station Bagwala, district Etah on 23.07.2003 at 18.20 hrs. The GD entry (Exb.Ka-3) of the written report and the chik FIR (Exb.Ka-2) was prepared by PW-3 at the time and date specified. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that informant’s sister-in-law Anima (the deceased) was married to Narendra. Narendra used to work as a labour in Delhi whereas his elder brother Raj Kishore @ Pappu (the accused-appellant) used to stay in the village
In circumstantial evidence cases, a complete chain of evidence must be established to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the presence of motive.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish....
Direct eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction under Section 302 IPC despite no motive; absence of motive not fatal if evidence reliable and conclusive.
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
