Topic Details
Topics Headnote Judgement
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — S 302 r/w 34 — Acquittal by Trial Court reversed by High Court — prosecution evidence — material contradictions and discrepancies in — Chance witness presence of, at the place of occurrence — not free from doubt —deposition of chance witness full of contradictions — Depositions of parents of the deceased — no way implicate the accused— other prosecution witnesses turned hostile — Acquittal restored. (Para 30 & 31) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — IPC — S 302 — Offence under — Two sets of Dying declarations — one made before the police officer & the Executive Magistrate—& the other one, oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her father—Held, dying declarations recorded by the police officer as well as the Executive Magistrate corroborated — no inconsistency as regards the role of the accused — Alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased after recording of statement by the executive magistrate — Held, there is no reason as to why deceased would give names of her husband and her in-laws in the alleged statement given to her father — Oral dying declaration does not inspire confidence — not relied — Acquittal upheld— Evidence Act — S 32. (Para 10 & 12) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — Ss 306 & 498-A — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Death by consuming poison — Allegation of — Postmortem Report — Evidence of Doctor — cause of death was due to "cardio respiratory arrest due to acute pulmonary edema"— No external injuries — no internal injuries to the brain— Chemical Analyzer —Report of — no poison detected in viscera — or the stomach contents —pieces of liver — spleen blood — & no poison was detected from stomach wash sample — Medical evidence — The doctor did not elaborate the cause for the 'respiratory arrest’ —Held, the prosecution failed to establish that the victim died due to consumption of poison and that she had committed suicide — Acquittal. (Para 6, 9 & 10) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — Ss 306 & 498-A — Evidence Act — S 32(1) — Ill-treatment not relate to cause of death or circumstances of the transactions which resulted in her death — inadmissible u/s 32(1). (Para 12) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CrPC — S 482 — IPC — Ss 307, 323, 341, 336, 354, 392, 427, 448, 452, 506, r/w 34 — Cross FIRs — Quashing of — Compromise between parties — Property dispute — Civil suit claiming certain rights in respect of subject premises— Exaggeration of the allegations— disputes are of individual and private nature — Both FIRs quashed. (Para 11& 17) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — S 307 — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Allegation of attempt to kill by forcing victim to consume phenyl — No proper history — Medical certificate — does not state that there was likelihood of death on consumption of phenyl by the victim — No medical evidence to substantiate the fact — Held, invocation of Section 307 of IPC was unjustified. (Para 11) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Criminal Jurisprudence — IPC — S 307 — Recording the offence under — Duty of the Court — the Court cannot be oblivious to hard realities — many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties — leading to physical commotion — & sustaining of injury by either or both the parties— there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence u/s 307— Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 13) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Criminal Jurisprudence — Nature of Legislation — IPC — S 307 — Offences u/s 307 would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences — are to be generally treated as crime against the society — & not against the individual alone— Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 15) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — S 376— Conviction under — Admission of the prosecutrix — Other people including her mother-in-law present near the spot —Held, it is difficult to accept that nobody came to her rescue — FIR — Delay in — lodged after a gap of three days —after returning home the prosecutrix did not lodge the complaint to the Police Patil— Washed her cloths & took bath—Held, improbable, not reliable and untrustworthy— alleged act was consensual — Enmity between Parties — Held, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt — Benefit of doubt —Acquittal — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant facts. (Para 7 & 8) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — S 376— Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Presence of other people in the close vicinity — Deposition by prosecutrix — made hue & cry — Nobody came for rescue —improbable version — not accepted. (Para 7) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — S 376— Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Admission by prosecutrix — Did not bite or scratch the appellant by nails —Improbable. (Para 5) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — Ss 498-A — Subjecting a woman to cruelty — Standard of proof for — Evidence of witnesses — is required to be seen for the limited purpose of consideration — whether the evidence shows any direct or personal knowledge of these witnesses of cruelty taking place in their presence — Evidence Act — S 3. (Para 13) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — Ss 498-A — Subjecting a woman to cruelty — Evidence Act — S 3 — relevant fact — Standard of proof — Evidence of witnesses — particulars regarding exact ill-treatment not given —does not show cruelty taking place in their presence. (Para 18) PDF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IPC — Ss 498-A — Subjecting a woman to cruelty — Evidence Act — S 3 — relevant fact — Standard of proof — Deposition of witnesses — Demand of money — five years before the incident as hand-loan— Not cause of death — ignored inadmissible — Admissible evidence does not spell out cruelty as explained in Section 498-A of IPC. (Para 19) PDF