SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Sonu S/o. Pitamber – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The present Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.212 of 2009, “State vs. Sonu and Others”, by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, the defaulter convict is directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the informant Satya Pal (PW1) had lodged an FIR (Ext.Ka.3) through his written information (Ext.Ka.1) that on 26.04.2009, his father Amar Singh was doing his duty of gate keeper at the railway gate of Village Kudi Bhagwanpur from 06:00 p.m. to 06:00 a.m. At around 10:30 p.m., he (informant) was going with his uncle Kaliya to give tea to his father. He saw Pitamber and his sons Shravan Kumar, Saurav Kumar and Sonu (appellant) coming from the Ra
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
C. Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must present complete and conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It....
The court emphasized that in criminal cases, mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is essential for conviction.
The judgment establishes the importance of conclusive and credible evidence in criminal cases, the admissibility of confession, the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle that....
The judgment establishes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and a clear motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the significance of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.....
The judgment underscores that mere suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial 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 establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by relia....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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.