Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD
Shiv Pujan Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's case details (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. defense arguments against conviction (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. evidentiary concerns regarding extra-judicial confession (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 4. recovery of evidence and its scrutiny (Para 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52) |
| 5. importance of complete evidence and motive (Para 58 , 62 , 63) |
| 6. presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt (Para 70 , 72) |
| 7. final judgment and acquittal (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
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
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.
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....
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....
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
