Back
GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
Balwant @ Munnu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 21, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287A of 1999 (State Vs. Balwant @ Munnu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, C.B.C.I.D. Crime No. 710 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad and judgment and order of conviction dated 06.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Room No. 22, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 287 of 1999 (State Vs. Durvijay Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 1981, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad, whereby all the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., one year imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C., with default stipulation.
2. The basis of prosecution case is the written report made by P.W.1-Shambhunath, scribed by Krishnapal Gupta, as per which informant’s nephew Bhupendra Narayan @ Lall
The prosecution must establish a reliable chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere allegations and weak evidence are insufficient.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
In circumstantial evidence cases, each link in the evidence chain must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by all proving consistent guilt without alternative explanations.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of evidence that excludes reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
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.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
Extra-judicial confessions require corroborative evidence to ensure reliability; circumstantial evidence must present a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime without reasonable doubt.
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
