LAW FOR ALL

Circumstantial Evidence - Proof of the same - lower court convicted the accused - Apex court held that It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2011 |VIJAY THAKUR |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH |.....RESPONDENT(S) | = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41937