Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Surender, Anil Kumar Jukanti, JJ
Amer Mohammed Jamal – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint lodged by pw1 (Para 4) |
| 2. investigation details (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. a1's confession (Para 8) |
| 4. frequent quarrels between a1 and deceased (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. evidence of quarrels (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. doubts regarding evidence (Para 19) |
| 7. failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt (Para 34 , 37) |
| 8. judgment set aside (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2017 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.381 of 2017 was filed by A2.
2. A1 and A2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 380, 201 r/w 120-B of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.14 of 2015 dated 14.02.2017 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. Since both the appeals are questioning the conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2, the appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, on 21.06.2013, at 3:00 P.M, PW1/complainant lodged a complaint stating that his sister, Shagufta Shereen (deceased), along with her husband, Amer Mohammed (A1), and their minor daughter, have been are residing at H. No. 6-
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any doubts require acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence and clear witness accounts.
The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses....
Circumstantial evidence must be incontrovertibly established to support a conviction, with the prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction set aside - lingering doubts that pervades every aspect of the evidence led, persuades to give the accused the benefit of doubt and acquit them of ....
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and discredited circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any missing link benefits the accused.
Circumstantial Evidence - Prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible con....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Prosecution must establish a clear chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; reliance on uncorroborated confession renders conviction unsustainable.
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
