Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree

To Convict on Circumstantial Evidence Chain must be Completed-Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court held in the recent Judgement ( Raju @ Rajendra Prasad v. State of Rajasthan)  that circumstantial evidence must consist of a chain of events that is so thorough that it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the accused committed the crime.

 Rajasthan High Court dismiss the appeals filed by the appellants and convict them of the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Appellant Contended that the case is supported by circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no direct evidence. It was argued that there isn't a shred of evidence against the appellants that would allow one to conclude that they murdered the deceased.

Supreme court held that It is necessary to highlight that the case is supported only by circumstantial evidence. There isn't any concrete evidence to support the claim that the appellants killed or murdered the deceased. There is no direct evidence that the appellants were involved in the crime, and as was noted above, the prosecution's case is supported only by circumstantial evidence. To support a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explaining any other hypothesis than that of the accused's guilt. This evidence must also not only be consistent with the accused's guilt but also form a chain of circumstances that is so long that there is no possible way to avoid the conclusion that the accused committed the crime and no one else.

The prosecution has failed to establish the full sequence of events and guilt, according to the Supreme Court, which leaves only the possibility that the appellants - accused alone - committed murder and/or killed the deceased.

The court believed that by finding the appellants guilty of the crime under Section 302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court and the High Court had made a very severe mistake. The appellants' conviction for the crime listed in Section 302/34 IPC is not upheld.

Raju @ Rajendra Prasad

VS

State of Rajasthan

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/4.pdf"]

Latest Legal News