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 Upholds Convictions and Acquittals in Landmark Case</h1> <h3>BODH RAJ @ BODHA & ORS. Versus STATE OF J&K</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6, as well as the acquittals of Accused Nos. 8 and 9. The appeals by the accused were ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction and acquittal of accused persons.2. Evidence of conspiracy.3. Reliability of witness testimonies.4. Circumstantial evidence.5. Recovery of weapons.6. Delay in FIR and witness examination.Summary:1. Conviction and Acquittal of Accused Persons:The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals against the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's judgment. Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6 were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court upheld their convictions. Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7 were acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted by the High Court. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 were acquitted by both courts. The appeal against accused Kishore Kumar abated due to his death.2. Evidence of Conspiracy:The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence to establish a conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC. The High Court noted that the accused owed money to the deceased and had planned the murder. The accused's actions and statements, including the recovery of weapons and the presence of accused at the crime scene, supported the conspiracy theory.3. Reliability of Witness Testimonies:The testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 8, 9, and 18 were crucial. The High Court found their evidence reliable, despite the defense's arguments about their credibility. The witnesses identified the accused and described the events leading to the murder. The High Court dismissed the defense's claims of witness unreliability and upheld their testimonies.4. Circumstantial Evidence:The judgment emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, ruling out any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The Court cited precedents, including Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, to underline the principles governing circumstantial evidence.5. Recovery of Weapons:The recovery of weapons used in the crime was a significant factor. The Court discussed the admissibility of evidence u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The recoveries, witnessed by several individuals, were deemed reliable and supported the prosecution's case.6. Delay in FIR and Witness Examination:The defense argued that the delay in sending the FIR and examining witnesses cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The High Court found the explanations for the delays plausible, noting factors like road closures due to heavy rains. The Court held that the delays did not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding the High Court's convictions. The appeal by the State against the acquittal of certain accused was also dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
