Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

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