Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI
Ram Bharosey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, JJ.
1. Heard Shri Apul Mishra alongwith Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Shri Ashvani Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. Present Criminal Appeal is being preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.1993, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Budaun in Sessions Trial No.176/87 convicting and sentencing the appellants- Ram Bharosey and Bankey with life imprisonment, under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC and 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 148 IPC , and appellants- Shishu Pal, Yogendra, Bhup Singh, Shiv Lal and Ashok alias Rohtash are sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment under section 147 IPC .
3. Vide order dated 05.03.2025 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.1-Ram Bharosey son of Vikram Singh and Appellant no.5-Shiv Lal son of Kundal Singh. Now the appeal is surviving only in respect
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence for a conviction; mere conjecture is insufficient.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and the use of circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of exp....
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain linking accused to crime; absence of ballistic report connecting recovered pistol to gunshot, no firing eyewitness, and unreliab....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to guilt; the absence of independent corroboration and strong motive creates reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence murder conviction cannot rest on solitary unproven recovery of stolen property without complete chain; accused's probable explanation on preponderance of probability entitles ....
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
