Back
SUJOY PAUL, PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
Ramphal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sujoy Paul, J. - This is an appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment passed by learned Special Court (Atrocities), Panna in Special Case No.01/2010 dated 10.3.2011 whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000 with default stipulation.
Factual background :
2. As per the prosecution story, on 09.10.2009, Shyambihari, son of Ramdeen Gond lodged a missing report in Police Station Brijpur that his father is missing from 07.10.2009. Missing report was lodged at No.8/09 and Head Constable Kamlesh Singh was directed to investigate the matter. During investigation, witnesses Chandan Gond stated that Jagga @ Jagprasad and Ramphal Lodhi may be involved in commission of crime. At this stage, further investigation was handed-over to SHO, Police Station, Brijpur i.e. Shri Udaybhan Singh. During investigation, appellant Ramphal Lodhi was interrogated by police and in turn, he informed that he alongwith his companions viz. Jagga @ Jagprasad, Mahesh, Chintaman and Ramvishwas Lodhi killed Sarpanch R
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to ....
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
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
