Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Nusrat Parween – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. The present appeals by special leave are preferred on behalf of appellant-Nusrat Parween,1[In Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2012, the appellant is Nusrat Parween. Hereinafter referred to as ‘Nusrat Parween/appellant No. 1.’] and appellant-Ahmad Khan, 2[In Criminal Appeal No. 2032 of 2017, the appellant is Ahmad Khan. Hereinafter referred to as ‘Ahmad Khan/appellant No. 2.’], assailing the judgment dated 19th January, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals,3[Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 101 of 2004, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1741 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1810 of 2003.] upholding the separate judgments of conviction and orders of sentence,4[Conviction Order dated 25th November 2003 & Sentence Order dated 1st December 2003.] passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur,5[Hereinafter referred as ‘the trial Court.’] in Session trial cases,6[Sessions trial Case No. 228 of 1998 and Sessions trial Case No. 393 of 2000.], whereby appellant No. 1, appellant No. 2 and Abdul Rahman Khan/accused No. 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,7[Hereinafte
(1) Murder – Proof of motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder – However, in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive if properly established, assumes great significance and would....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
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
