G. S. AHLUWALIA, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
SITARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
JUDGMENT G. S. AHLUWALIA, J. : – This Criminal Appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 15-1-2010 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 57/2009, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and has been awarded Life Sentence and a fine of Rs. 500/-, with default imprisonment of 6 months R.I.
2. The prosecution story in short is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Papitabai. He got married with her in the year 2002. The deceased was residing with the appellant in Ayodhya Colony, Jail Road, Dabra. In the morning of 16-12-2008, Sudama informed Atar Singh, the father of the deceased, that his daughter has expired, therefore, he should come immediately. Accordingly, Atar Singh, Rajvir Singh, Chandan and Bhupendra came to Dabra and found that the dead body of the deceased Papitabai was lying supine in the house of the appellant. Thereafter, Atar Singh lodged report in Police Station Dabra and accordingly, Merg No. 122/2008 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The statements of the witnesses were recorded
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Dara Singh vs. Republic of India
Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta For the Respondent : C. P. Singh
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof on the prosecution and the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the shift of burden of proof to the appellant, and the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions in esta....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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.