Back
K. J. THAKER, AJAI TYAGI
Km. Sandhya Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajai Tyagi, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Banda, in Session Trail No.204 of 2010 (State of U.P. vs. Km. Sandhya Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2010 under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 IPC, Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda, whereby the appelants are convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in defalut of payment of fine, further imprisonemnt for one month.
2. Heard Shri Vishwadeep Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that son of the informant, Namely, Kishan aged about 2-1/2 years went missing on 24.4.2010. Next day, on 25.4.2010 a missing report was lodged by informant at Police Station-Baberu, District-Banda. On 18.5.2010, the dead-body of the missing son was found
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence without corroborative proof and a clear motive, as established by the principles governing ....
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 ....
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
Burden of proof under section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, falls upon accused to prove his innocence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory 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
