Back
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI
Uradi Sailu, Medak Dist – Appellant
Versus
P. P. , HYD – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY)
Since both the appeals are filed assailing the same judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2016; Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2016 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State in both the appeals.
3. These appeals have been filed by the appellants – accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C assailing the judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2016 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak in S.C.No.185 of 2014.
4. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation for the offence under Section 302. Similarly, they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/- each with d
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through cogent evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt for a conviction to be sustainable.
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence.
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as per established legal principles.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a motive for the crime to secure a conviction.
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
