Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, E.V.VENUGOPAL
Mukthala Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals were filed regarding previous convictions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts surrounding the murder case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. describes the crime and the evidence collected, establishing context. (Para 10) |
| 4. arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's analysis on circumstantial evidence. (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence and legal principles. (Para 19) |
| 7. final conclusion and sentencing. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.)
Criminal Appeal No.2184 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/accused No.2, and Criminal Appeal No.2571 of 2018 is filed by the appellant/accused No.1. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the judgment in SC No.397 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Mohd.Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned legal aid counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW3, who is the father of the decease
The prosecution must establish guilt through circumstantial evidence aligning with the principles, ensuring no reasonable doubt remains regarding innocence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt for a conviction to be sustainable.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The prosecution must establish each link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
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
