Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Nandu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09-05-2014 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 650/1999.
3. On the reporting made by PW-2 Thuran Singh, father of one Shiv Kumar Khairwar that his son had gone to a Paddy Milling Centre at about 3.00 p.m. on 13.01.1997 and had since then been missing, a crime against unknown persons was registered. After the body of said Shiv Kumar Khairwar was recovered from a pond on 17.01.1997, the crime was converted to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC', for short).
4. The appellant came to be arrested in said crime on 20.01.1997 and soon after his arrest, certain recoveries on the strength of his statement were stated to have been effected.
5. Leaving aside the recoveries, the prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of following witnesses:
(A) PW-3 Birja Singh, younger brother of the deceased, was a student of Vth class when he was examined. The witness stated that on the relevant day he had gone along with the deceased on a bicycle for milling of paddy; and that after the paddy was milled at the place one Ullekh Prasad,
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The need for conclusive proof of each circumstance and th....
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction can be recorded in absence of recovery of corpus.(2) Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retrac....
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence without corroborative proof and a clear motive, as established by the principles governing ....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must be established, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
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
