Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MANOJ KUMAR GARG,
SANJEET PUROHIT
STATE – Appellant
Versus
BHEEMA AND ORS – Respondent
[2025:RJ-JD:33814-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 582/2002 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus
1. Bheema son of Dola Gurjar aged 50 years resident of Pasund P.S. Rajnagar District Rajsamand
2. Mal Chand son of Shri Modi Ram Gurjar resident of Koyal – presently residing at village Sewali P.S. Rajnagar District Rajsamand
3. Paras Ram son of Nathu Gurjar resident of Pasund P.S. Raj Nagar District Rajsamand.
----Respondents Connected With D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 259/2002 Smt. Badami Bai widow of Late Sh. Mohanlal(deceased) resident of Boraj Ka Kheda, P.S. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
----Appellant Versus
1. Bheema son of Dola Gurjar, resident of Pasund, P.S. Rajnagar, District Rajsand.
2. Mal Chand son of Modi Ram Gurjar, resident of Village Koyal, at present Sevali, P.S. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand.
3. Paras Ram s
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The importance of establishing a clear motive and the need for circumstantial evidence to be cogently and firmly established, pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for acceptable evidence and one cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
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
Listen Article