Indian Supreme Court on Murder Cases

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Supreme Court opinions on Murder Cases before it ..Facts ..Trial.. Evidence.. Punishment.. Aggravated and Mitigating circumstance .. Conversion of Death sentence to Life sentence ..Appeal against conviction and acquittal ..Revision ..Writ..Review.. Curative petition.. Bail granted , rejected and cancelled..Constitutional challenge..Rarest of the rare doctrine ..Law and order cases..Political assassination .. Terror attack ..Murder with rape… Claim of Juvenility..

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Accused charged U/S 149 IPC read with Secs 302 & 307 and no individual charge U/S 302 or 307 framed against accused for his individual act—The charge suffered from a serious lacuna - Suraj Pal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh - 01-03-1955 - The opinion of prosecuting authorities that murder in question should have been attributed to a witness and not accused is irrelevant for trial of accused and should not have been placed on record.
  • Aggravating circumstances - VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SC]-The normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so. Such reasons must be recorded in writing before imposing the death sentence.
  • Ajmal Vs State of Kerala-12/07/2022 - Appellants would be entitled for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under section 304 PartII IPC. Rest of the conviction upheld by the High Court and the sentence for the charges under sections 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC is maintained.
  • Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
  • Atul Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh etc [SC 2018 JANUARY] - KEYWORDS:-MURDER-The number of wounds caused by the appellant, it is a well established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. DATE:- January 19, 2018. Thus, it is a case of homicidal death. However, there is no evidence that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were with an intention to cause the murder of Hitesh Thakur. On the other hand, the […]
  • BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
  • Cases where charge u/s 302 IPC was converted into section 304 IPC by Supreme Court - following decisions wherein the case under section 302 IPC was converted into section 304 IPC. (1) Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal reported in , 2012 (6) SCC 581 (2) Ankush Shivalee Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra reported in , 2013 (6) SCC -770. (3) Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra reported in , 2012 (9) SCC-725 (4) Rampal Singh […]
  • Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab-12/01/1979 - Although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is view of the exception provided in sub section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor.
  • DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."
  • Difference between “murder” which is not an accident and “murder” which is an accident - In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 The question,  is can murder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that murder, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have […]
  • Difference between Murder and Manslaughter under the USA Law - (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or […]
  • Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors[SC 2017] - KEYWORDS- Murder-de novo trial-Rights of victim in criminal trial There is a discernible paradigm shift in the criminal justice system in India which keeps in mind the interests of victims as well. Victim oriented policies are introduced giving better role to the victims of crime in criminal trials. It has led to adopting two-pronged strategy. On the one hand, law […]
  • Elucidate the credibility of Defence evidence is a murder trial ? - Undoubtedly it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. Once that is done a presumption that the accused was sane when he committed the offence would arise. This presumption is rebuttable and he can rebut it either by leading evidence or by relying upon the prosecution evidence itself.
  • Emperor vs Khudiram Bose-13/06/1908 - The accused is not a mere youth but a young man who has attained the age fixed for majority in this country. The crime was not committed at the instigation of older men present on the spot. For twenty days the accused and his companion had been in Mozufferpore watching for an opportunity to commit the crime, and when they thought the opportunity offered itself they carried it out with deliberation and determination after first taking precautions to avoid detection and secure escape. It is impossible to treat the accused as a young man who did not know fully well the serious nature of the crime he was committing.
  • Govind Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - Murder-The entire occurrence was in a spur of the moment. There was a quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in the spur of the moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter. The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. The chimney lamp was burning there which the appellant had picked up and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.
  • Govindaswamy v. State of Kerala [ ALL SC 2016 SEPTEMBER] - KEYWORDS:-RAPE AND MURDER-INTENTION-VICTIM NOT DIED INSTANTLY DATE: September 15, 2016 To hold that the accused is liable under Section 302 IPC what is required is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act of the accused is likely to cause death. The intention of the accused in keeping the deceased in a supine position, according to P.W. 64, was […]
  • Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019 - Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
  • Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and ANR [ALL SC 2018 MAY] - KEYWORD: MURDER CONVICTION DATE: May 08, 2018 ACTS: Section 304 Part-I IPC HELD: “the deceased sustained head injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and temporo parietal region infarct in the right fronto temporo parietal region of the brain, haemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region and right parietal region. The weapon used in the manner in which the injury was inflicted clearly […]
  • How to prove a criminal case based on circumstantial evidences - Evidence Act, 1872—Circumstantial evidence—Onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete—There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
  • Human hand mannual Strangulation (throttling), Suicide by hanging and ligature mark explained by SC - “ligature mark brown coloured encircling whole of neck measuring 39 cms, all round the neck, ½ cms. on the sides and back and 2 cms. in the front of the neck anteriorly placed on the thyroid cartilage horizontally, margins were irregular, echymosed and base of ligature was dry and parchment like and membranous. On cut Section there were multiple echymotic spots on subcutaneous tissue and muscles. Thyroid cartilages was broken cricoid cartilage was also broken
  • In case of multiple Dying Declarations overall facts on record has to be adopted – SC (16/12/2022) - Multiple dying declarations-Apex court notices that the present is a case where the second dying declaration has been rejected completely by the High Court. In these circumstances, the cumulative weight of evidence relied upon by the High Court needs to be examined to ascertain whether the appellant is guilty of the offence he stands convicted for, i.e., Section 498A IPC. Ex. P-26, the second dying declaration is the only piece of evidence which names the appellant as one of the perpetrators of cruelty on the deceased along with the other accused. Both the courts below have noticed that in Ex. P-11, the first dying declaration, the appellant has not been named; rather he along with his father took the deceased in a critically injured state to the hospital. Undoubtedly, the focus of the first dying declaration is only upon the incident involving pouring of kerosene and setting the deceased on fire. The second dying declaration, Ex. P-26 alone elaborates acts of cruelty. That is the only piece of incriminating evidence against the accused. As far as the recovery of articles and the smell of kerosene in the report considered by the court are concerned, they are circumstances relating to the incident of setting the deceased on fire. They do not further the prosecution’s case under Section 498A as against the appellant.
  • In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and ‘murder’ its species - All `murder' is `culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, `culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, `culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as `murder'.
  • Issac @ Kishor Vs. Ronald Cheriyan and Ors.[SC 2018 January] - KEYWORDS:-Setting aside  acquittal-302 IPC -MURDER-High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision- DATE:- January 23, 2018 In appeal against acquittal, in exceptional circumstances, the High Court may set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought it fit for appeal. But it is to be emphasized that […]
  • JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND OTHERS-28/11/2019 - Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
  • Kailash Gour and Others Vs State of Assam -15-12-2011 - This Court in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 dealt with the effect of failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR and declared that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained the same is fatal to the prosecution.
  • Kamlakar Vs. State of Maharashtra-31/05/19 - Section 302 & Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code- Supreme Court not interfered when having reappreciated the evidence to the extent it is required and a detailed perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court as also the High Court would indicate that both the Courts have adverted to the evidence in detail and have ultimately arrived at the conclusion and when the concurrent judgment based upon the evidence have found the appellant to be guilty of the charge alleged against him in committing the murder and had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Karuppanna Gounder Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police – 17/09/2019 - Accused acquitted : The question is whether the death of the deceased could be attributed to the injury caused by the appellant A1. The appellant is alleged to have used the Sammatti (hammer) and he gave a blow at the back of the head or on the neck of the deceased. Both the injuries do not correspond with the injury […]
  • Khushal Rao Versus State of Bombay-25/09/1957 - Though under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, it is not illegal to convict a person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Act, lays down as a rule of prudence based on experience, that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his evidence is corroborated in material particulars and this has now been accepted as a rule of law.
  • Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-18/08/2021 - It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence
  • Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Others-1/4/2019 - Offence of Murder - In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
  • Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object u/s 141 I.P.C - CRIMINAL - Section 302 read with Section 149 - the FIR was registered on 12.08.1989 but was forwarded to the Magistrate only on 16.08.1989, after a delay of 4 days, becomes significant in light of the inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution with respect to the appellant. It appears that the appellant was roped in as an accused, due to the inimical relationship between the parties which clearly emanates from the record. [ MARCH 29 2019 ]
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of Rajasthan- 07/06/2011 - conversion of offence against the Appellant Md. aslam from Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code to 304 Part-I read with 34 Indian Penal Code and convict him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of ` 5000/-.
  • Mohd. Aslam Versus State of U.P. -12/02/1974 - We think that the High Court would have been well advised, having regard to the age of the appellant and also the circumstances of the crime, to have reduced the sentence to one of life imprisonment.
  • Munawwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-16/07/19 - Murder and kidnapping of a seven-year old-The identity of the kidnappers been established. There is direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies, which establish accused persons had kidnapped and had held the victim in captivity. Further, there was no time gap or interregnum between ‘X’s disappearance and kidnapping; they were simultaneous. Subsequent evidence, including the conduct of Shamim, who […]
  • Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (24/01/2023) - Although, mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth.
  • Murder Conviction upheld-accused failed to explain presence of blood on his clothes and recovery on his instance - 01-10-2018- The High Court has rightly held that motive stood established because of the grudge that the appellant nursed against his father with regard to agricultural lands. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-8 cumulatively established that the appellant had gone to the agricultural fields where the deceased had gone at night. The lands of PW-8 were adjacent to that of […]
  • MURDER TRIAL IN INDIA - How to handle a Murder Trial
  • Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra-23/03/2021 - A cryptic phone call without complete information or containing part-information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as an FIR. This proposition has been accepted by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala-5 and Damodar v. State of Rajasthan-6. A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an FIR.
  • OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY : Pakistan Penal Code 1860 - OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY Of Offences Affecting Life 299. Definitions: In this Chapter, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (a) “adult” means a person who has attained the age of eighteen years; (b) “arsh” means the compensation specified in this Chapter to be paid to the victim or his heirs under this Chapter; (c) […]
  • Police officer got seven years of enhanced punishment for killing by using Third Degree - In the facts and circumstances of this case’ the punishment of three year imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court under Section 330 of IPC’ would be grossly insufficient and disproportional. We deem it appropriate to increase the term of sentence to maximum imposable period under Section 330 of IPC i.e.’ seven years of rigorous imprisonment’ while maintaining the fine imposed […]
  • Quick consideration of mercy petition and swift rejection the same cannot be ground for judicial review: SC on rejecting a petition by Nirbhya Rape-Murder Accused - Mukesh Kumar vs UOI-Article 32 of the Constitution-a death-row convict -The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India and seeking commutation of his death sentence inter alia on the following grounds
  • Rajbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (22/08/2022) - It is more than evident that chain of evidence has many missing and weak links. None of essential ingredients to record conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are made out. Prosecution has thus failed to bring home the guilt.
  • Ram Chander & Ors.  VS State of Haryana[SC 2017 JANUARY] - KEYWORDS: Murder- Expert Evidence Merely because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones recovered were human or animal bones, in our view, would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming evidence available on record to prove the complicity of the appellants Murder-Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the […]
  • Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19 - Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
  • Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ALL SC 2018 OCTOBER] - MURDER-Acquittal of the accused. DATE: October 26, 2018. ACT: Section 148/149 read with Section 302 IPC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2013] Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the accused(A1) against the final judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in […]
  • Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019 - MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
  • Section 300 of Indian Penal Code: When Killing is not Murder - 300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— (Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm […]
  • Sentencing Policy set by Supreme Court - Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. the State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, Apex Court held the nature, motive, and impact of crime, culpability, quality of evidence, socioeconomic circumstances, impossibility of rehabilitation and some of the factors, the Court may take into consideration while dealing with such cases.
  • Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19 - Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Amar Lal-10/12/2019 - Acquittal-It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone 2 years 8 months 11 days of custody and after his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained incustody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan & Ors-31/05/19 - Section 302/149 of the IPC & Section 304 Part II of the IPC- it was a case of free fight,  the weapon used by the accused was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal and again the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II of the IPC.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019 - MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility and vicarious liability on which the very idea of charge under Section 149 IPC is founded. For the application of the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC what is material to establish is that […]
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua (02/09/2022) - There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC. By the impugned judgment and order though the High Court has specifically maintained the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, but the High Court has reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which is less than imprisonment for life, which shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable.
  • State of Rajasthan Vs Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta- 01/12/2011 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 374 and 378—Appeal—There is very thin but fine distinction between appeal against conviction and acquittal—There is no substantial difference between appeal against conviction and appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal Court keeps in view the position that PRESUMPTION of innocence in favour of accused has been fortified by his acquittal—Golden rule is that Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease judicial conscience.
  • State of Rajasthan vs Mehram & Ors-06/05/2020 - QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/­75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
  • Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-2/5/2018 - MURDER-DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE EXPLAINED-Section 300 of the IPC explains what is murder and it provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or the act complained of is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or "such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • What is a “Rarest of Rare Case”? - Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P [1973] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1982] Mithu v. State of Punjab [1983] State of Punjab v. Harchet Singh [1994]  Mohd. Chamat v. State (NCT of Delhi) [1998] State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [2000] Ram Deo Chauhan and Another v. State of Assam [2000] Saibanna v. State […]
  • Whether facts of last seen together by itself lead to inference that the accused committed the murder - The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. In the present case there is no such proximity of time and place


Next Post

ALL News Headlines 2020 January 4TH

Sat Jan 4 , 2020
SGPC: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee (SGPC), the apex body of the Sikh community, will be sending a four-member delegation to Pakistan to take stock of the situation following a mob attack on Gurdwara Nankana Sahib and also take up this matter with the United Nations. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) president and Akali Dal MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa alleged […]
Law Library

You May Like

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: