IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD
Shiv Pujan Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ZAFEER AHMAD, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 15.12.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur in S.T. No. 48 of 2006 ( State v. Shiv Pujan ) arising out of case crime no. 06 of 2006 wherein the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C).
Prosecution Case in Nutshell:
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant Mangal Prasad Verma submitted a written report (Ex. Ka-1) at Police Station Jarwa, District Balrampur, stating therein that his father Shiv Pujan had two brothers, namely Munshi and Nibber. Shiv Pujan was the eldest, Munshi was the second and Nibber was the youngest. All the three brothers were living separately. The second brother Munshi used to reside with his parents, namely Ragunath and Kamla, in a seperate house situated at the edge of the forest. Furthermore, it was stated that on the morning of 17.01.2006, his uncle Nibber came and informed him that during the preceding night, some unknown persons had dragged Mun
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain, with reasonable doubt favoring the accused.
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
The convicting based solely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions requires corroborative proof and must adhere to well-established principles regarding such evidence.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of 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....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
Circumstantial evidence, when complete and consistent, can sustain a conviction without direct eyewitness testimony; minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.