Skip to main content

Circumstantial facts need to be proved: Bombay HC

Observing that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish and prove the circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the conviction of a man who was convicted for killing his wife.

“The prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused was present in the village and was seen near the scene of the incident i.e. his house from 12/3/2006. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution unerringly establish the presence of the appellant and consequently, merely because of finding of the dead body of the wife of accused in the house, presumption cannot be drawn that it was the appellant who had committed the crime,” said a division bench headed by justice P V Hardas while acquitting the accused.

“The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature .The circumstances so proved should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The circumstances so proved should be capable of only one inference and that is, it is the accused and the accused alone had committed the crime.

In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution falls woefully short of establishing the said chain which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has failed in establishing the offence against the appellant and the appellant, therefore, in our opinion, would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt,” the court further noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Sudam Javle challenging his conviction and life term awarded by the Pune sessions court.

The wife of the accused was found murdered in house. The prosecution alleged that the accused had killed her. The deceased had earlier filed a case of domestic violence against the accused.

Article referred: http://freepressjournal.in/circumstantial-facts-need-to-be-proved-hc/#sthash.0QSgIsLb.dpuf

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more