SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 221

K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S.R.PANDIAN
Jaharlaldas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent


Advocates:
A.D.Giri, A.K.PANDEY, H.K.PURI

JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:— Leave granted.

2. This is a case of death sentence. The fact that such a sentence is awarded even in the year 1990 would immediately suggest that the offence involved should be of a grave nature. Yes, the offence is not only grave but heinous and inhuman.

3. A girl aged five years was a victim of rape and thereafter murder. The sole appellant before us was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court. It is a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the obvious contention is that the circumstantial evidence is wholly insufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused.

4. No doubt the offence is a shocking one but the gravity of the offence cannot by itself overweigh as-far as legal proof is concerned. Invariably in such cases a person last seen with the victim, unless otherwise there are circumstances prima facie exonerating him, would be the prime suspect but in the ultimate judicial adjudication suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. With that caution in mind we shall now proceed to examine the facts and circumstances as put forward and the various
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top