SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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