Conviction

Any doubt arising in prosecution case was to be resolved in favour of the accused.

When evidence of last seen had already been disbelieved by the court, conviction could not be sustained merely on the ground of recovery of weapon of offence.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen defenders, wrongful confinement, hurt by rash or negligent act, criminal intimidation, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Ocular account not proved

Effect on recovery

Conviction

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing

Insofar as the recovery of the pistol and the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory wereconcerned, it was significant to note that once the direct prosecution evidence had been disbelieved, the conviction and sentence of the accused could not be maintained merely on the basis of such recovery and the corresponding Forensic Science LaboratoryReport

Without delving into the merits or demerits of those pieces of evidence, recovery alone, even if proven, could not form the sole basis for conviction when the primary ocular account stood discredited

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Conviction cannot sustain on the basis of medical evidence alone.

Where the ocular account becomes, doubtful or unreliable, any alleged recovery made pursuant to such account could not, by itself, be sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence of an accused.

Harsher the punishment prescribed, the stricter the standard of proof required.

Conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence for the reason that a man could tell a lie but circumstances do not.

Conviction and sentence can be awarded to the accused on the basis of his/her retracted judicial confession, provided that the said judicial confession is corroborated by some independent evidence.

Conviction can be recorded even in case carrying capital punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused

However, circumstantial evidence should be accepted with great caution and has to be scrutinized minutely for reaching the conclusion that no plausible conclusion can be drawn except guilt of the accused.

Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to punish an accused.

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted.

Harsher the punishment, stronger the evidence required for establishing the indictment.

If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice with the consistent approval of the Constitutional Courts, will be reduced to a naught.

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Conviction can be validly recorded and sustained based on the testimony of even a solitary eye-witness, provided it is credible, truthful and inspires confidence.

Conviction canbe recorded on the basis of retracted judicial confession, if the same is proved voluntary, true and is corroborated by other strong circumstances of the case

Mere denial of accused from confessional statement, in statement under Section 342,Cr.P.C., that the same is involuntary or that he has not made any such statement will not make his confessional statement inadmissible.

Conviction can be recorded even in a case carrying death sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused

Prosecution is duty bound to prove every circumstance independently so connected with other circumstances which constituted an unbroken chain that led to no other inference but to the guilt of accused.

If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice with the consistent approval of the constitutional Courts, will be reduced to a naught.

Unless direct or substantive evidence is brought on record, a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of such evidence, howsoever convincing it may be.

Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof.

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

It is imperative for the prosecution to provide all links in chain as unbroken, where one end of the same touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused.

Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused as burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond shred of any ambiguity.

Conviction can be awarded to an accused on the basis of direct oral evidence of only one eye-witness if same is reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.

Accused can be convicted on the evidence of a sole witness provided that his evidence is found to be to trustworthy, reliable and confidence inspiring.

No one should be convicted of a crime based on presumption in the absence of strong evidence of unimpeachable character and legally admissible.

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Conviction cannot be recorded on the basisof mere assumptions and presumptions, surmises and conjectures.

Testimony of an eye-witness, if found to be trustworthy, accurate, free from embellishment, and confidence inspiring, could by itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.

To establish an accusation, it is not the quantity but quality of the evidence, which gets preference for the purpose of conviction.

Absconsion of an accused, being a relevant fact, can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence but cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence

Abscondence can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case as it is not necessarily indicative of guilt

Moreover, abscondence is never sufficient by itself to prove the guilt.

Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to punish an accused.

Whenever witnesses are found to have falsely deposed with regard to the involvement of one co-accused then, ordinarily, they cannot be relied upon qua the other co-accused unless their testimony is sufficiently corroborated through strong corroboratory evidence, coming from an unimpeachable source.

Once the testimony of an eye-witness is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of high degree and value, would be sufficient to convict an accused in a case of capital punishment.

One could not be and should not be convicted under the umbrella of doubt and cloud.

Unless direct or substantive evidence is brought on record, conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of any type of evidence howsoever convincing it may be.

No conviction can be recorded based on mere assumptions and presumptions unless it is established purely following the law.

Conviction of an accused could be recorded on the basis of retracted judicial confession, if the same is proved voluntary, true and corroborated by other strong circumstances of the case

Mere denial of an accused from his confession in statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., would not make his confessional statement inadmissible.

Dying declaration is a weak type of evidence and it can not be made the sole basis for conviction.

Conviction on abscondence alone cannot be sustained.

If such a source is not available, then it must be supported by some strong circumstance to enable the Court to overcome the inherent doubt, which such evidence must necessarily create.

While deciding criminal case evidence recorded in another case cannot be taken into consideration and the case should be decided on the evidence available on its own record.

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Conviction can not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone.

Conviction can only be awarded on the basis of circumstantial evidence when it impeccably connects the accused with the commission of crime

For awarding conviction, the incriminating circumstances must be so closely inter-woven with each other that from their appraisal no conclusion other than guilt of accused is to be drawn

Any break in the chain of circumstances or legal inadmissibility of its any part renders such evidence unworthy of credence and cannot be used for raising the superstructure of conviction.

Conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone.

When the prosecution can prove its case on its salient features then unnecessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the very purpose of the law on the subject.

Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

For giving benefit of doubt to the accused, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty

If there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must got to the accused.