The interview with Kelle Jarka who has been sentenced to life imprisonment has shaken California community. Jim Avila, the news reporter revealed that the convict is highly distressed on the decision of the court. Jarka is of the view that it is quite unjust to convict him when there was no concrete evidence to hold him liable for the murder. He expressed his opinion in utter desperation and told that he was convicted by the court of law on the basis of “circumstantial evidence”. There was no direct evidence to hold him liable. As far as the law of evidence is concerned, any accused can not be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone especially when the conviction may lead to harsh sentence. The burden of proof to hold a person liable for a crime is on the person who asserts and mere circumstantial evidence is not enough.
The circumstantial evidence can hold a neighbor responsible for any crime but the reliability merely on circumstantial evidence may lead to miscarriage of justice. Circumstantial evidence can be used to corroborate other direct evidences. Jarka said to the judge before he gave his decision that he spent twenty years of happy marriage and how he could kill his wife whom he misses a lot and recalls his golden moments of life with her, her touch, her affection and her beautiful smile. He told that he and her wife always desired to grow older together but I have been left alone to grow old.
Kelle Karla told that when he came back home, he found her dead. He is of the view that her murder seems to be the result of burglary attempt but the police have unjustly charged him of her wife’s murder.
Comments