1860

When someone who sustained gunshot injuries and profusely bleeding was attacked again and the persons who attempted to come to his rescue were also attacked the only inference that can be drawn from such circumstances is that the common object was to do away with the life of that person. In the facts and circumstances, […]

In this case of double murder based on circumstantial evidence, links in the chain of circumstances were completely established. High Court, held, has not properly appreciated entire evidence on record. Findings recorded by High Court are perverse. High Court, held, committed grave error in observing that prosecution failed to prove link evidence, which could establish

In this case, appellant-accused herein after sprinkling chilli powder into eyes of deceased, stabbed him with knife on his chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries to him, leading to his death in hospital. Deceased was attacked in broad day light. There is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence and mere non recovery of

Principles regarding interference with conviction in revisional jurisdiction in the case of cheating and misappropriation, when permissible. Section 397 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of

In this case, alleged money transaction between appellant-accused herein and deceased leading to dispute between them, resulting in appellant allegedly murdering deceased using firearm. As the case was based on circumstantial evidence and links in the chain of circumstances were not found established, hence, acquittal of appellant by trial court, restored. Held, while dealing with

Principles for clarified for determination of culpable homicide, or, murder. Significance of use of the word “likely” in several places in S. 299 and absence thereof in S. 300, explained. The use of the term “likely” in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused

the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in the dicky of the scooter and it was the very looted amount which was recovered from the accused, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of recovery of some cash. It is required to be considered

To claim such a right, the accused must be able to demonstrate that the circumstances were such that there existed a reasonable ground to apprehend that he would suffer grievous hurt that would even cause death. Thus, necessity of averting an impending danger, held, is the core criteria for exercising such a right. In a

To attract applicability of S. 34 prosecution is under obligation to establish that there existed common intention which requires prearranged plan. Before a person can be vicariously convicted for criminal act of another, act must have been done in furtherance of common intention of all. In absence of prearranged plan and thus a common intention,

In this case, material clearly established that after deceased fell down with the help of co-accused, accused K kicked and assaulted deceased on his neck with his legs and hands. Ocular version supported by medical evidence, which indicated that the deceased suffered abraded contusion of reddish blue colour on the neck area and abraded contusion