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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more