Delhi High Court: Providing Email Services Does Not Make Google a Public Functionary  ||  Patna HC: Lying on a Woman Without Any Act Toward Penetration Rules Out Attempted Rape  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Cannot Claim a Bench Change as a Right After Roster Changes  ||  Calcutta High Court: Peaceful Protest is a Democratic Right and Cannot Be Treated as an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Trial Courts Must Verify an Accused’s Address Before Declaring Absconding  ||  Gujarat High Court: Judicial Officer Cannot Seek HC Judge’s Transfer over Housing Grievance  ||  Delhi High Court Orders 125 Websites Using Jio Trademark for Lottery and Gaming to Be Suspended  ||  MP High Court Strikes Down 27% OBC Quota, Restores Reservation to 14%  ||  Supreme Court: Hindu Widow’s Limited Estate Became Absolute under Succession Act  ||  Supreme Court: Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement Requires Referral to Arbitration    

State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Kumar and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (16 Jul 2019)

There must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of Accused

MANU/SC/0915/2019

Criminal

Present appeals have been filed by the prosecution assailing the judgment of the High Court acquitting the Respondents charged for the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court in its impugned judgment recorded a finding that, the chain of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is very doubtful, contradictory and not reliable at all. It was also observed that, most of the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and many important and relevant witnesses without any reason has not been produced by the prosecution.

It is well settled that, in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the Accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. There must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused. It must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused and none else.

The High Court in its impugned judgment has elaborately considered the circumstantial evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution and arrived to the conclusion that many important and relevant witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution.

The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with all human probability that the act must have been done only by the Respondents. There is no error committed by the High Court in arriving conclusion in the impugned judgment. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE   ACQUITTAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved