Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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