| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Evidence Act 1872 — Section 3 — Relevant fact — Gang rape — Medical evidence — no sign of forcible intercourse — prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse — was living separately from her husband for 1 and ½ years — Held, the medical evidence as such in the attendant facts and circumstances in a way belies the allegation of gang rape. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376 — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Financial assistance — Evidence of witness — the prosecutrix used to take financial help from the accused persons — & she used to indulge in dubious late night activities for which her husband had deserted her— Defence plea of false implication — as the accused persons had declined to oblige the prosecutrix qua her demand for financial help — cannot be lightly discarded. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — Rape, Molestation & Other crimes against women — Statement of Victim — Construction of — Held, the evidence of the prosecutrix is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary —IPC — S 376. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Interpretation of Statute — Rape, Molestation & Other crimes against women — Statement of Victim — Credibility of witness — Held, the testimony of the victim in such cases, though commands great weight — but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration—IPC — S 376. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder of wife by strangulating her — allegation of — Circumstantial evidence — case based upon — Held, falls short of the requirement in law to return a finding of guilt without any element of doubt — Medical evidence not supportive to prosecution case — Acquittal of accused persons of the charge of cruelty u/s 498A IPC— full acquittal of co-accused — fatal to prosecution — charge of murder not established — Benefit of doubt — Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Medical evidence — does not decisively establish the case to be of homicidal hanging—Held, a serious setback to the prosecution —IPC — S 302. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder by hanging — allegation of — Postmortem report — Opinion of doctor — highlighted the absence of the characteristic attributes attendant on death due to homicidal hanging following strangulation — Held, reinforces the possibility of suicide —Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder of wife — allegation of — Relationship between deceased & accused — Letters written by deceased to the accused — do not reveal anguished outbursts of a wife otherwise expected in such a situation — do not suggest any bitterness, disappointment, frustration and seething indignation of the deceased — Instead there are traces of cheer for his expected return in near future —Authenticity of letters not impeached — Defence version accepted — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 147, 149, 302 r/w 149, 324 & 326 — Reversal of acquittal by High Court — Broad day light— One of the accused himself mentioned about the enmity — said accused himself is injured — shows his & the presence of deceased — Except for some contradictions, the version of eye witnesses consistence — no reason to reject their said version— the discrepancies of trivial nature — could not be the basis of rejecting the evidence of injured eye witnesses — all the five eye witnesses have named A1 to A7 — Specific role attributed— their conviction u/s 302/149 upheld — Other accused not named by two eye witneses — Benefit of doubt given— Appeal partly allowed. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 34 & 141 — Common object & unlawful assembly — Ambit & Scope — An offence committed in prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly by one person renders members of unlawful assembly sharing the common object vicariously liable for the offence. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 34 — Common object — Ascertaining of — Held, has to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members of the assembly — & all the surrounding circumstances. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 34 — Common object — Ascertaining of — It can be gathered from the course of conduct of the members — It is to be assessed keeping in view the nature of the assembly — arms carried by the members — & the behavior of the members at or near the scene of incident. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 34 — Common object — Sharing of — Held, sharing of common object is a mental attitude — which is to be gathered from the act of a person and result thereof. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 34 — Common object — Inference of — Held, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when common object can be inferred — When a crowd of assailants are members of an unlawful assembly, it may not be possible for witnesses to accurately describe the part played by each one of the assailants — It may not be necessary that all members take part in the actual assault. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 34 & 141 — Common object & unlawful assembly — Appreciation of evidence — Duty of the Court — Held, criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases — & it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —IPC — S 141 — Unlawful assembly — Fixing of culpability — Duty of the Court — Held, when a crowd of unlawful assembly commits an offence— it is often not possible to accurately describe the part played by each of the assailants— the court has to perform its duty of sifting the evidence carefully. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 r/w 149 — CrPC — Ss 161, 162 & 378 — Material omissions amounting to contradictions — Chance witnesses — Statements have been rightly discarded — Eye witness — presence of — highly unnatural — ability to individually and correctly identify each of the accused from a considerable distance, in dark, is itself suspect — evidence not truthful, reliable and trustworthy, cannot form the basis of conviction — Vehicle of the accused —not convincingly connected, with the incident beyond reasonable doubt — prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt — Appeal dismissed. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 120-A — Criminal conspiracy — Conspiracy witnesses — Evidence of — different details of the conversation — presence at the alleged spot unnatural — were not witnesses to the alleged conspiracy. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder case — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Related witness — share the victim’s hostility to his assailant — Evidence of — Duty of the Court — Held, naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence very carefully & —scrutinise all the infirmities before deciding to act upon it. — Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab —Relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 — Murder case — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Related witness — Evidence of — relying upon — Duty of the Court — Held, if the criminal Court is satisfied that the witness was not a chance-witness— his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault — has to be carefully scrutinised— Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab —Relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 336, 337 & 338 — Conviction under — Death by cylinder burst — Use of domestic cylinder for industrial purpose — allegation of — Eye-witnesses as well as the panch witness are not in a position to say exactly as to whether the burst cylinder was the domestic or the industrial gas cylinder — Accused were already having the industrial gas connection since long — Held, there was no question of use of domestic gas bottle — Held, it is very difficult to come to a specific conclusion that the burst cylinder was meant for domestic purpose in the absence of any reasonable proof — Benefit of doubt — Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 435— Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees — invoking of — Held, there should be an act of mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that a person, will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Conduct of accused — On realizing that the cylinder was leaking the accused did not run away for safety — but they attempted to stop the leakage — knowingfully well the consequences that cylinder may catch fire and may blast, causing fatal injuries to themselves also —establishing innocence of the accused —IPC — S 435. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Ownership — Accused were the owner of the factory and no wise person himself would think of damaging his own property— endangering the others' lives—IPC — S 435. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 304-A — Death by negligence —Safety measures were taken — Safety equipments & the first-aid kit used to be kept handy for immediate response to any casualty — Negligence not proved. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 107 — Abetment —Mode of proof —requirement under — there has to be instigation given by one person to the another for doing the thing —or engagement with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing of an illegal thing —or illegal omission —or intentional aiding by any act —or illegal omission —or willfully misrepresenting —or concealing the material fact which is bound to be disclosed. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 107 & 306 — Abetment of suicide — Instigation — ingredients of —Held, for an instigation to be completed — there must be some incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action —or in other words presence of mens rea is the necessary ingredient of the instigation. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 306 — Abetment of suicide — Threat by accused — to remove the victim from service — No step was taken towards execution of the threat— the apprehension would not be reasonable. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 306 — Abetment of suicide — Standard of proof — Utterances by accused — Held, would not be enough — & there must some circumstances which would make one prima facie believe that the petitioner meant by what he said — & his such words created a situation of desperation for the deceased leaving him no other option than to commit suicide. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 306 — Abetment of suicide — Threat by abettor — to remove the victim from service — Held, would not by itself be amounting to instigation to commit suicide— as the person threatened has several options available in law to remedy his grievance— Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 — Inherent power of the Court —IPC — Ss 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 —Matrimonial Dispute —No specific allegation & instances in the FIR —FIR quashed qua applicant nos.4 to 8 only. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 323 & 324 —CrPC — S 197&204 — Previous sanction & Issuance of process — Police excess in connection with effecting the arrest —Allegation of — Admitted fact — complainant caused injury to the applicant-accused by dangerous weapon while evading arrest — no evidence regarding beating within the premises of police station & inside the police station — Held, the applicant was discharging his duty at the material time— conduct as alleged against the applicant is reasonably connected with the performance of his official duty — certainly entitled for the protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C.— Cognizance could not have been taken without previous sanction of the competent authority — Application allowed. |
PDF |