Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGRAWAL, RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
Pratap Patel Alias Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal for suspension of sentence and bail. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the circumstances of the appellant's guilt. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's examination of witness credibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 4. standards for criminal conviction and the doubt principle. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. final decision of acquittal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramkumar Choubey, J.
1.Albeit, the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.19365/2025, which is first application filed under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short "CrPC") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, rather pressing on the said application, the learned counsel for the parties concur to argue the matter finally. Thus, it is heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Damoh in S.T. No.207/2017 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
3. The encapsulated facts necessary to reach a decisive conclusion are that the fir
The conviction cannot stand without credible, corroborated evidence linking the accused to the crime, emphasizing the burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances which are required to be proved in order to complete the chain of circumstances towards the guilt of the a....
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete chain excluding innocence; long time gap invalidates last seen theory without ruling out third-party intervention; open-place recoveries lack credibility; un....
The need for conclusive evidence and a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt, and the limited jurisdiction of the appellate court in interfering with findings of fact by the trial court.
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
The reliance on the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence cannot suffice for conviction if there are significant gaps in the timeline, failing to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonabl....
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
