MOHALI: After spending nearly five years in jail, a woman accused of murdering a seven-year-old boy was acquitted by a Mohali court on Thursday, which said the prosecution had failed to establish motive, connect circumstantial evidence , or prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Amandeep Kaur , a resident of Gharuan village, remained in judicial custody for four years, eight months and 12 days as no one came forward to stand surety for her bail, her counsel C S Bawa said.
"The entire evidence leads this court to an inference that the deceased might have died accidentally. The suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of cogent proof," the court said, acquitting Amandeep of all charges. The court emphasised adherence to the 'Panchsheel principle' of circumstantial evidence, which requires all circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
The court said while the evidence suggested the boy may have drowned in the drum found in the accused's house, there was nothing to show the drowning was intentional or that Amandeep was responsible. "The evidence on record proves that on the date of occurrence, the deceased went to the house of the accused. But what happened inside that house was never proved by the prosecution. There is no eyewitness in the case, and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to conclude that Amandeep caused the boy's death," the court stated.
Amandeep Kaur , a resident of Gharuan village, remained in judicial custody for four years, eight months and 12 days as no one came forward to stand surety for her bail, her counsel C S Bawa said.
"The entire evidence leads this court to an inference that the deceased might have died accidentally. The suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of cogent proof," the court said, acquitting Amandeep of all charges. The court emphasised adherence to the 'Panchsheel principle' of circumstantial evidence, which requires all circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
The court said while the evidence suggested the boy may have drowned in the drum found in the accused's house, there was nothing to show the drowning was intentional or that Amandeep was responsible. "The evidence on record proves that on the date of occurrence, the deceased went to the house of the accused. But what happened inside that house was never proved by the prosecution. There is no eyewitness in the case, and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to conclude that Amandeep caused the boy's death," the court stated.
You may also like
Andrew loses titles: What will be his new public name? Read King Charles' full statement
'I won't be there': Alyssa Healy reflects on Australia's exit and future after semifinal loss to India
South Korea to launch 5th spy satellite from US space base Sunday
Dies Irae Twitter review: Netizens hail Pranav Mohanlal's power-packed performance, call it a 'mind-blowing' Malayalam movie
"Rule of law, along with effective enforcement, fundamental to economic growth": LS Speaker Birla tells IPS officers of 77 RR batch
