Keeping Pace with Legal Change
This paper studies the case of SD in India delivered by the Supreme Court of India. Shabuddin v. The State…
The case was observed by the Supreme Court of India in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 331-332 of 2022, which concerned…
A very recent notable judgment of the Supreme Court of India was in a case involving Kattavellai @ Devakar in…
When Mangesh died from a gunshot via his friend Vaibhav’s father’s pistol, conflicting narratives emerged. While the High Court emphasized Vaibhav’s suspicious conduct post-incident, the Supreme Court acquitted him, citing lack of motive, inconclusive bullet trajectory analysis, and the prosecution’s failure to disprove suicide. The judgment highlights evidentiary thresholds in circumstantial cases and the accused’s right to silence when the state’s case remains unproven
This article provides an analysis of the decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court on April 17, 2025, which upheld the conviction of a father for the murder of his kid. This report analyzes the facts, looks at Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, and investigates how the verdict of the court was influenced by circumstantial evidence, motivation, and forensic results.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court set out the five golden principles for relying on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, stressing that every link in the chain must be conclusively established and exclude all reasonable doubt, ensuring that conviction is based only on evidence that points solely to the accused’s guilt.
The Honourable Supreme Court established the fact that provided there is circumstantial evidence in the case, it would suffice to convict the person of an offence provided the circumstances when joined together creates a complete and unbroken chain of guilt. Maintaining the decision made by the Chetan case, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration important precedents, supporting the view that the credible circumstantial evidence provided, together with inability of the accused to signify the facts that proved his guilt are enough to convict the case without direct witnesses.
In the case of Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court made it clear that allegations of suspicion alone are not sufficient to warrant a conviction. It highlighted gaps in evidence and incorrect reversal by the High Court, and it reinstated the acquittal of a husband who was accused of murder by the trial court.
