Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I
Jaggu Kol – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants- Jaggu Kol and Shankar against a judgment and order dated 31.03.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1986 arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 1986, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:-
Accused-appellant Jaggu Kol
(a) Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.
(b) Rigorous imprisonment of five years’ and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo for rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
Accused-appellant Shankar @ Sheo Shankar
(a) Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
(b) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years’ and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo for rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
However, all the sentences awarded to both the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
Brief Facts
2. In nu
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to guilt; the absence of independent corroboration and strong motive creates reasonable doubt.
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 prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence for a conviction; mere conjecture is insufficient.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
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 prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere suspicion and motive are insufficient.
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
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
