Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJIV GUPTA, DEVENDRA SINGH-I
Radha Charan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Judgment :
Rajiv Gupta, J.
1. Heard Shri Vishesh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court record.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.01.1984, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1983 ( State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Sharma ), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment.
3. In the instant case, the information about the incident, in question, was given by the accused-appellant himself through a written report submitted by him in the Police Station Raya on 02.02.1983 at 7:30 AM, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 36 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC. The FIR particularly reveals that in the night at about 12:00 O’clock, the informant had a quarrel with his wife Pramila and she threatened him that within 2-3 days, she will get her killed. The said conversation could not be tolerated by him and in a fit of anger, he struck a farsa blow on her neck causin
The court emphasized that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires clear and cogent proof, which the prosecution failed to establish, particularly regarding motive and the admissibility....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify acquittal.
The confessional statement of the Appellant was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable ....
The court affirmed that corroborative eyewitness testimony and medical evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the absence of the murder weapon.
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain, with reasonable doubt favoring the accused.
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 prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural delays can undermine the case.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, including corroborative evidence when relying on confessions or weapon recovery.
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
