{"id":1828,"date":"2024-05-03T16:51:09","date_gmt":"2024-05-03T11:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1828"},"modified":"2024-05-03T16:51:09","modified_gmt":"2024-05-03T11:21:09","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-prosecution-must-establish-no-one-else-had-information-about-discovery-statement-made-by-the-accused-to-convict-him-on-that-basis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-prosecution-must-establish-no-one-else-had-information-about-discovery-statement-made-by-the-accused-to-convict-him-on-that-basis\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that Prosecution Must Establish No One Else Had Information About discovery statement made by the accused to convict him on that basis"},"content":{"rendered":"

RAVISHANKAR TANDON\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF CHHATTISGARH\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3869 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 194, 232 and 277 of 2013 wherein the Division Bench 2 dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants, namely Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1), Umend Prasad Dhrutlahre (accused No.2), Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No.3) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 5th February, 2013 as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018trial court\u2019) in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2012.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the recovery of the dead body was on the basis of the information given by the accused persons in the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shri Saran and Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that, in any case, the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of proven circumstances which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons. They therefore submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the judgments and orders of conviction need to be quashed and set aside.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shri Pranav, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the contrary, submitted that both the High Court and the trial court have concurrently held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the findings of the trial court and the High Court are based upon cogent appreciation of evidence and as such, no interference is warranted.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cWe therefore find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances against the appellants herein. In any case, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons, which is not so in the present case.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAVISHANKAR TANDON\u00a0 \u00a0[APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF CHHATTISGARH\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT(S)] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3869 OF 2023 (2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J.)   Facts: These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1830,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1828"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1831,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828\/revisions\/1831"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}