RAMESH SINHA, SAROJ YADAV
Deepak Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saroj Yadav, J.
1. The Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2016 (Deepak Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by the convict/appellant Deepak Kumar Yadav and the Criminal Appeal No.407 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P.) has been filed by convict/appellant Arvind Kumar Maurya against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2014, under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2013, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Faizabad.
2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under :-
A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.338 of 2013, under Section 363 I.P.C. on 10.11.2013 at Police Station Rudauli, District Faizabad on the basis of the written report presented by Mihi Lal wherein, he stated that his elder son, Anil Kumar, aged about 18 years, went somewhere on 02.11.2013 around 08:00 P.M. Since then his whereabouts are unknown. The complainant searched for him (Anil Kumar) at his relatives' places but no information could be found. His son had a mobile No.738808077
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Anil Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
Anjan Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam
Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Ganpat Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P.
Navaneethakrishnan vs. State by Inspector of Police
Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Shahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra
The need for a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellant was not established based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and motive in murder cases; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence, when complete and conclusive, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.