Back
PRITINKER DIWAKER, JASPREET SINGH
Taufeeq – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pritinker Diwaker, CJ.
The convicted appellants have preferred the instant two appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th September, 2016 and the sentence dated 01.10.2016 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2013 ( State v. Mohd. Imran and two others) convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 376 (2) (f & g) I.P.C. with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine with a six months of additional simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted and sentenced under Section 304 /34 I.PC. with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and again in default of payment of fine with additional six months of simple imprisonment.
2. Taufique has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2016 against his conviction while Mohd. Imran and Farhan have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2016 against their respective convictions.
3. The prosecution case as evident from the First Information Report (Exhibit-Ka-2) which was lodged by Sri Samarjeet Saroj, the elder brother of the victim, reveals that
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The court upheld the conviction based on established circumstantial evidence, affirming that all necessary conditions for such conviction were met.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
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
