Facts
The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine, imposed by the Sessions Court on 29 June 2018.
Source reference: para. 1The prosecution alleged that Akram, the informant’s adult son, went missing on 20 July 2013 after going with Pramod, and that Pramod later demanded ₹50,000 and threatened harm if the police were informed.
Source reference: paras. 4–10Akram’s body was never recovered, and the FIR was lodged on 18 November 2013.
Source reference: paras. 4–10The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, principally the informant’s account
Source reference: no citationIssues
Section 106 Cannot Replace Proof of a Complete Circumstantial Chain by the Prosecution.
Source reference: no citationLaw Applied
Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC
Source reference: para. 1Section 106 Cannot Replace Proof of a Complete Circumstantial Chain by the Prosecution.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
Section 106 Cannot Replace Proof of a Complete Circumstantial Chain by the Prosecution.
Source reference: no citationActs & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852
Original Court PDF
Monu @ Monu KumarvsState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
