| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 302 & 201 — Extra judicial confession — does not inspire evidence — not corroborated by other evidence on record — would not be safe to act upon it — Non examination of material witness — Recovery of dead body — not at the instance of the accused — Recovery of articles — not proved to be related to commission of offence — not proved to be incriminating materials — chain of circumstances not complete — benefit of doubt — Acquittal — Evidence Act — S 3, 9, 24 & 27. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376— Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Time & Place of incident — Prosecutrix had gone for answering call of nature in the open in afternoon—not an isolated place — busy area — With school and hotel around and road and lane passing at short distance having traffic —Held, it is surprising that nobody was attracted — No injury — on the person of the prosecutrix nor on the private parts or to the accused — Aggressive rape — Held, it is surprising that there should not even be any scratch on the person of the Victim & if it was not consensual she should not have caused any harm or injury to the Accused — Evidence of prosecutrix — not inspiring confidence — Circumstantial evidence—contrary —Acquittal. (Para 11, 16, 17 & 24) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376— Rape — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Built of the Victim — Strong built — allegation of dragging for more than 100 ft. — Held, very difficult to accept that intercourse, if any, could be said to have been forcibly committed. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 376— Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — circumstantial evidence — seizure of clothes — Clothes of prosecutrix washing of — Report of Chemical Analyser — the underwear had stains of blood and appeared to be washed — very less time gap between incident & seizer — Held, when the underwear got washed and when it got dried is not clear— No mention in Panchanama that it appeared to be wet — Other clothes, contained stains of semen were not washed —not inspiring confidence —fatal to prosecution. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 307 & 324 r/w 34 —Evidence of complainant vis-à-vis evidence of prosecution witness — Contradiction between — Type of Injury — Medical Evidence — Muscle deep wound on neck —simple in nature — Evidence of witness & Medical evidence — contradiction regarding manner the injury was caused — Grievous injury on nose — by hard and blunt object — Admission by doctor — injury was possible by fall on hard & rough surface —Maker of injury — major contradiction regarding —presence of — contradiction regarding —Spot of incident — not established—Previous Dispute — previous complaint — Complainant had lost the civil suit regarding property — Defective investigation — Acquittal. (Para 9, 10, 11, 13, 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 — IPC — Ss 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114— Quashing of FIR — against the brother-in-law of the complainant — Vague allegation— regarding threats to the complainant — Absence of accused— applicant was pursuing his study in a different city during the relevant period — Held, it is difficult to believe the story put forward by the complainant — No material in support of allegations — FIR quashed. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 —IPC — Ss 406, 420, 409, 120B, 504 & 11 — FIR under — Quashing of— Profession of applicant — broker — worked as broker in the transaction in question — Non payment— Held, merely because accused nos.1 and 2 have not made payment— cannot be said that the applicant has hatched conspiracy with the said accused —FIR quashed. (Para 5&6) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against Acquittal — IPC — Ss 304(B), 306 & 498A — Offences under — Neutral witness — Evidence of — dowry demand & physical or mental cruelty — not proved — Order of awarding maintenance u/s 125, CrPC — alleged reason for cruelty — Held, by itself is not sufficient material or evidence to reflect upon conduct of accused — Acquittal upheld. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 304(B), 306 & 498A — Death by burning — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Place of incident — structure of hut — presence of hearth (chula) — Held, had there been sprinkling or pouring of kerosene flames of the fire could have engulfed a small hut — benefit of doubt —Acquittal upheld. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — IPC — Ss 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, & 120-B — Passports Act, 1967— Section 12(B)(2)(3) — Forging fake documents to obtain passport — charge of —Hostile panchas — Same police officials who issued NOC termed the same documents as forged, after the complaint was lodged —no explanation regarding this tendered during the course of trial — Not established as regards to the alleged forgery on the part of each accused — cannot be held responsible jointly —Acquittal upheld. (Para 8 & 8.1) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — Ss 304 Part II — Conviction under — Complainant — Evidence of — two contradictory versions — Evidence full of suspicion — creates doubt —Material witness — non examination of — Held, it was pure moral conviction & the same cannot take place of legal conviction in absence of legal proof — case against the appellant-accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt — benefit of doubt — Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 498-A — Conviction under — Suicide by married woman — Deceased was suffering from thyroid & could not conceive —Ground of conviction — no extra care by husband — Medical case papers as well as the receipts issued by the medical store for purchase of the medicines produced — Held, the care which was required to be taken by the husband, appears to have been taken — Prosecution not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt —Acquittal. (Para 5.5 & 5.5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Standard of proof — there has to be independent corroboration for placing any reliance upon extra-judicial confession. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 106 — Burden of proving fact specially within knowledge — Conduct of accused — reported police about missing of the deceased — deceased frequently used to go outside for 2 to 5 days — Held, This explains her conduct, nothing more can be attributed to her exclusive knowledge which she was required to explain within the purview of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Soiled clothes in mud —Claimed in FIR — not mentioned in Panchnama — Mud on the spot & the soiling of the clothes in mud not matched—fatal to prosecution. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Defective investigation — Spot panchnama — doubtful — Statement of complainant recorded as dying declaration —Original copy suppressed — only a carbon copy found— not matching with F.I.R. — fatal to prosecution. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 27 — Relevant fact & Discovery — accused stated before the police at the police station itself as to where exactly the articles related to the offence were kept — discovery vitiated—Defective investigation —fatal to prosecution. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 32 — Dying declaration — death by fire — Cause of death — accidental— Not disputed — supported by postmortem report that death was accidental— Medical opinion — testimonies of postmortem Doctor — Supported said fact. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Interpretation of Statute — Evidence Act — S 3 — Standard of Proof — Golden Rule —Duty of the Court — ‘May be’ true & ‘Must be’ true — Large distance between —must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Material witness — either may be the victim or the eye witness or both — Say of — in oral evidence —Would transform the incident into the crime—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — person who called the police — non-examination of — fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |