PARMANAND YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2001 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sapna and Sandeep somewhere in the intervening night of 11th and 12th January 1997.

(2.) The impugned judgment has not been penned in a manner in which law mandates a decision pertaining to circumstantial evidence to be penned. Law requires that in a case where proof is by means of circumstantial evidence the Court must list the incriminating circumstances held established against the accused and thereafter give reasons as to why the Court concludes that from the circumstances in question the chain of circumstances is complete wherefrom the guilt of the accused can be inferred and innocence ruled out.

(3.) But, having perused the evidence of the prosecution in the instant case, it can safely be said that (though not specifically listed by the learned Trial Judge), the learned Trial Judge has held against the appellant on account of proof of the following:-