Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(D.K. Upadhyaya, J.)
1. An application has been preferred to condone the delay along with the application seeking leave of the Court to file an appeal under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.
2. Office has reported a delay of 15 days in preferring this appeal.
3. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and also having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-appellant, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.
4. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed and resultantly the delay is condoned.
5. The State-appellant has moved the application under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda whereby the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted of the charge against them for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2015 which had arisen out of Case Crime No.23 of 2015, under section 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station-Umari Begamganj, District-Gonda.
6. Heard learned Additional G
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosec....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
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....
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
