Back
RAJIV GUPTA, SAMIT GOPAL
Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
1. These criminal appeals are connected together as being of co-accused persons which have been preferred against the judgement and order dated 15.4.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 07 of 2003 (State vs. Indra Bahadur Singh and 8 others) whereby the accused-appellants Lalli Singh, Virendra, Jhande Yadav @ Jhundu @ Shiv Kumar, Chaloo Yadav @ Ram Chandra Yadav, Ghanshyam Singh, Jay Karan Singh, Jhallar Singh, Shivnath Yadav and Indra Bahadur Singh have been convicted and sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. to 01 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 01 month additional imprisonment, under Section 148 I.P.C. to 01 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 01 month additional imprisonment, under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 02 months additional imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be extended to t
A conviction based solely on the testimony of a single witness requires that witness to be wholly reliable; procedural lapses in recording confessions can render them inadmissible.
Compliance with the mandatory requirements for recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the need for adequate evidence to establish charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Evidence reliance on Section 164 CrPC statements is inadequate when witnesses become hostile, illustrating the need for corroboration and admissibility standards in criminal proceedings.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated statements or circumstantial evidence; it must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone does not justify conviction.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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
