Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I
Ram Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Judgment :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants namely Ram Prakash, Ramesh, Jagdish, Matti, Ram Sajiwan, Tulsi Ram and Dal Chand against a judgment and order dated 17.10.1989 passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 29/89, whereby learned Judge convicted each of the appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under:-
(a) Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.,
(b) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and,
(c) Rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Taking into consideration the office report dated 15.10.2025, the instant criminal appeal stands abated qua appellant nos. 4, 6 and 7 namely Matti, Tulsi Ram and Dal Chand, vide order of this Court dated 21.01.2026.
Brief Facts
3. The fact of the prosecution case is that a written report was filed on 19.09.1988 by Hari Ram son of Ghanshyam Ahirwar, resident of Village Bhadrekhi stating inter-alia that on 17.09.198
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 prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
