Views
2 years ago

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -176-persons based on the evidence of the accomplices,fails miserably in the present case.Further, on the aspect of guilt to be provedbeyond reasonable doubt, it is pertinent to mentionthe case of Vijay Kumar Arora v. State(Govt. of NCT ofDelhi) 52 , wherein the Court held as under:“16.Essential ingredients to prove the guilt ofan accused by circumstantial evidence are:16.1. The law relating to circumstantialevidence is well settled. In dealing withcircumstantial evidence, there is always adanger that conjecture or suspicion lingeringon mind may take place of proof. Suspicion,however, strong cannot be allowed to take placeof proof and, therefore, the Court has to bewatchful and ensure that conjectures andsuspicion do not take place of legal proof.However, it is no derogation of evidence to saythat it is circumstantial. Human agency may befaulty in expressing picturisation of actualincident, but the circumstances cannot fail.Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that"men may tell lies, but circumstances do not".16.2. In cases where evidence is of acircumstantial nature, the circumstances fromwhich the conclusion of guilt is to be drawnshould, in the first instance, be fully52 (2010) 2 SCC 353

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -177-established. Each fact sought to be relied uponmust be proved individually. However, inapplying this principle, a distinction must bemade between facts called primary or basic onthe one hand and inference of facts to be drawnfrom them, on the other. In regard to proof ofprimary facts, the court has to judge theevidence and decide whether that evidenceproves a particular fact and if that fact isproved, the question whether that fact leads toan inference of guilt of the accused personshould be considered. In dealing with thisaspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefitof doubt applies.”(emphasis laid by this Court)95. Thus, as can be seen from the above mentionedcase, the evidence of the accomplices at the most,raises suspicion and conjectures but the same cannotbe construed as legal evidence against the accusedpersons, relying solely on which they can beconvicted, as has been done by the courts below.Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that theconfessional statements of accomplices form a veryweak form of evidence, to prove the culpability of theaccused persons if the guilt of the accused cannot be

A Modern Prosecution Service - Department of Justice
legislation and prosecutions in uganda
Khasho March 2011 - National Prosecuting Authority
Operation Marble
Putting on Mock Trials - Law-Related Education
HamMUN 2012 Study Guide_HRC
M887 - National Archives and Records Administration
the legal framework & prosecution of human trafficking offenders in ...
Protecting_Children_Cybercrime
Natural History Museum - The Open University
Presentation: European Gold Forum (Zurich) - Avocet Mining PLC
PRINCE2-Practitioner BrainDumps
The_Danish_Military_Justice_System
criminalprosecut00evaniala
The life of the Prophet Muhammad - Ibn Kathir - volume 4 of 4
Searchable Press Cuttings Part 2 (PDF Format, Size 17.2MB)
Oklahoma 2010 - State of Oklahoma Web Site