Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Venkatesh @ Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These appeals by special leave filed by original accused Nos.1 to 4 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 04th September 2017 passed by the High Court1 [The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru], in Criminal Reference Case No.14 of 2010; and in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2012.
2. The appellants along with original accused Nos.5 to 9 were tried by the Trial Court2 [XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bengaluru] in Sessions Case No.443 of 2001 and Sessions Case No.55 of 2004 for having committed offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC, 3[The Indian Penal Code, 1860]. Accused No.9 died during the pendency of the trial and the proceedings against her stood abated. The Trial Court 2 [XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bengaluru] acquitted original accused Nos.5 to 8 by its judgment dated 17.09.2010 but convicted the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Section 396 read wi
(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....
(1) Statement given by accused to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is not admissible as evidence.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, very heavy duty is cast upon prosecution to prove its cas....
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.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, with no plausible alternative explanations.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of proof is essential for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
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
