Back
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Goverdhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
What is the standard of proof in criminal cases and how should evidence be weighed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? What constitutes a "related" versus an "interested" witness and how should testimony from related witnesses be treated in evaluating a case? When is it permissible to convict based on a sole eye-witness or hostile witnesses, and how should corroboration and probative value of such testimony be assessed?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the Criminal Appeal No. 290/2002 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) while setting aside the conviction of the third accused and thus, acquitting him.
2. As the two appellants are seeking reversal of the concurrent findings by two courts, the Sessions Court and the High Court, this Court has to tread very cautiously as observed by this Court on numerous occasions including in Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 253 wherein it has been held that unless the findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence, this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings. Thus it was, observed in Mekala Sivaiah (supra) as follows:
(1) Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
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
