Tulsiram Kanu Versus The State-the Sessions Judge has examined in detail the Evidence in respect of the ornaments and has given reasons for his conclusion that the ornaments were not proved to be the ornaments of the deceased. The reasoning of the High Court that the accused had not made any attempt to show that the ornaments belonged to him is clearly fallacious. The failure or ommission of the appellant to prove that fact does not in any way help the prosecution in proving the guilt of the appellant.
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.
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)-The states from whom extradition is sought will recognise that breach of bail is a separate matter in the UK. With an explanation of the way in which breach will be considered by the court and on the basis that punishing those who fail to answer bail is a necessary component of an effective criminal justice system which releases most of those charged with crime rather than requiring their detention in custody. In every case the consent of the state from which extradition is sought should unequivocally be requested with an explanation of why this is necessary. If, in those circumstances, criminal proceedings have to be commenced, it should not be impracticable to start such proceedings at the time that extradition is sought.
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.
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.
A witness can be graded as reliable, unreliable, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and consequences shall be followed accordingly: SC
MAY 24, 2019 – Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
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 ]
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 […]
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
KEYWORDS:-Murder acquittal (2011) 13 SCALE 140 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) State of Rajasthan Appellant Versus Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta Respondent (Before : Swatanter Kumar and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.) Criminal Appeal […]