TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court orders framing of charges against Professor in wife's murder case, emphasizes standard of proof</h1> <h3>STATE OF BIHAR Versus RAMESH SINGH</h3> STATE OF BIHAR Versus RAMESH SINGH - 1977 AIR 2018, 1978 (1) SCR 257, 1977 (4) SCC 39 Issues:- Discharge of accused under sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- Standard of proof required at the initial stage of trial- Evaluation of circumstantial evidence in determining guiltAnalysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court involved the appeal of a Professor of Economics who was accused of murdering his wife. The case started with the wife being found burning in the kitchen, leading to the lodging of a First Information Report against the professor. The Additional Sessions Judge initially discharged the accused due to insufficient grounds for trial. However, the State of Bihar appealed this decision, leading to the High Court dismissing the revision and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.The Court emphasized the distinction between the initial stage of trial under sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the final stage of determining guilt. At the initial stage, the Court is not required to meticulously judge the evidence but to consider if there is a strong suspicion of the accused's guilt. The judgment referenced previous decisions to highlight that the test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction.The judgment also discussed the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in determining guilt. In this case, the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence due to the lack of direct eyewitness testimony. The Court criticized the Trial Judge for delving too deeply into the medical evidence and emphasized the need for stricter proof when relying on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court, directing that appropriate charges be framed against the accused, and the trial proceed further in accordance with the law. The decision highlighted the importance of following the correct legal procedures and standards of proof at each stage of the trial, ensuring that the accused receives a fair and just process.
TaxTMI 