上一步 21 / 21 下一步

21 a substantial loss of time from when PW-8 saw the deceased and the appellants together on 16.12.2012 and when the deceased were found on 17.12.2012. In such circumstances, it is difficult to draw an inference that the appellants had committed the crime. 44. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 30.04.2015 in Criminal Reference No.3 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 536 of 2014 and 537 of 2014 are hereby set aside. The judgment and order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 is also set aside. The appellants/accused are hereby acquitted for the offences for which they were tried and they shall be released forthwith, unless required in any other case/cases. …………………………………J. (A.K. SIKRI) …………………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) …………………………………J. (M.R. SHAH) New Delhi; March 5, 2019.

選擇目標文字3

● ● ●

Girdhari Vaishnav

案件摘要

司法管轄

印度

國籍

印度人
印度尼西亚人

案件標題: Digamber Vaishnav and Anr v. State of Chhatisgarh

性别: 男性

犯罪時的宗教信仰: 印度教

司法轄區 - 地理定位

緯度: 20.5937

經度: 78.9629

司法轄區 - 地理定位 (已連結案件摘要): 印度

瑞慈合作機構

The Square Circle Clinic (印度)

該國最新死刑狀態

保留死刑

案件現狀: 已結案: 無罪釋放

判處死刑年份: 2010s: 2014

執行方式: 絞刑

涉嫌侵犯的權利

公正審判與正當程序權利: 公正調查與信息披露

死刑所涉罪名的性質

謀殺: 多名受害者

專家證據

法醫 / 醫學證據: 屍檢 / 死後檢驗
法醫 / 醫學證據: 指紋 / 掌紋 / 足跡

案件背景 (最多300字): Robbed and murdered five relatives. The circumstances against the accused include child witness testimony; disclosure statement to the police (regarding recovery evidence including motorcycle, cash and jewellry); forensics report matched the accused’s clothes with clothes recovered from the site of occurrence; fingerprint expert’s report matched accused’s fingerprints recovered from the site of occurrence.

The trial court sentenced the accused to death on 14.05.2014, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the same on 30.04.2015. On appeal, the Supreme Court set these judgements aside and acquitted the accused on 05.03.2019.

辯方意見 (最多200字)

There was an unexpected delay in reporting the offences.
The court’s strong reliance on the oral testimony of a child witness is weak, because she was not a witness to the actual incident and her testimony had not been corroborated. Another witnesses’ testimony was hearsay and unreliable.
The evidence of recovered items was unreliable and they were not connected to the crime.
The fingerprint report could not be relied upon
The evidence of last seen was insufficient to establish guilt.

判决摘要 (最多200字)

"The court held that: Witness testimonies 1)The testimony of the child witness need not necessarily be corroborated against other evidence as a matter of rule, but the witness should be reliable and the testimony should be evaluated carefully. Here, she was not an eyewitness to the incident and her evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and thus could not be relied not, especially because neither her nor any of the other witnesses identified the accused, and the First Information Report was registered against unknown persons. 2) There were multiple contradictions across testimonies offered by the prosecution, about important material facts regarding whereabouts and timings. 3) Important witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, without any reasons for the same, including the person who allegedly first discovered the deceased and the fingerprint expert. Reporting: There was an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, that of about 12 hours, despite the police station being only about 6 kilometres away, which weakens the case of the prosecution. Recovery Evidence:

The recovery evidence (motorcycle, clothes) was weak as the prosecution did not attempt to prove that they belonged to the accused.
The other recovery evidences (anklet and cash) was also weak, because the prosecution failed to prove that it belonged to any of the deceased.
The testimony of the witness to the seizure memo was contrary to the memo brought on record.
The First Investigation Report did not record show any items being stolen. Fingerprint and Forensic Evidence:
There was a day’s gap between the lifting of the fingerprints and the seizure of items, with no explanation for the same.
No prints were found on the doors or almirah to substantiate a robbery. Further, several expensive ornaments were left intact in the house.
The forensic evidence was insufficient, and findings of the hair analysis was inconclusive. Last Seen Evidence: The last seen evidence was weak, as there was nothing to prove that there was a close proximity between the time of discovery and recovery of the dead body. Suspicion: There could be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be.

獲得法律代理的情況

第二次上訴階段: 公益律師
偵查前階段: 未知
審判階段: 未知
上訴階段: 未知

與罪名相關的立法: Sections 394, 34, 302, 366 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

司法判例: Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, Panchhi and others v. State of U.P, State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, Alagupandi alias Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

案件摘要錄入狀態: 完成

案件材料語言

英語

該案例摘要是否已收錄？: Yes

主要文檔

Digambar_SC judgment.pdf
English
下載查看

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

選擇目標文字3

Girdhari Vaishnav

主要文檔

Notifications