Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 315 (2.14 seconds)Sapan Haldar & Anr. vs The State on 11 August, 2011
44. Relying on another judgment of the Division Bench in the matter
of Chote Khan (supra) it is contended that where ransom calls are made
on telephone with no threat of any kind, or simplicitor calls for ransom
which eventually led to recovery of the child, in total absence of
evidence in regard to any threat to cause death or hurt to the
kidnapped child and also lack of evidence in regard to the accused
conducting themselves in a way that could raise a reasonable
apprehension that the child would be harmed or be killed; the ransom
demand simplicitor alone could not bring the offence within the ambit
of Section 364A of Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, the
Crl. Appeal No.804/2001 Page 76 of 110
Division Bench had set aside the conviction and sentence for offence
punishable under Section 364A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and
had maintained the conviction only under Section 363 of Indian Penal
Code.
Avdhoot Vithal Ghate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 January, 2022
In the case of Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant, the Supreme court has observed
that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of
circumstances and not the snapped and scattered links. The
Supreme Court has also considered the rule of prudence while
appreciating the circumstantial evidence.
Station vs Purushottam Dashrath Borate on 25 September, 2012
State vs . 1. Anil Puri on 21 October, 2019
73. As far as law relied upon by Ld. Defence
Counsels is concerned, same is not applicable to the
present case being on different footing because gist
of judgments relied upon by Ld. Defence counsels in
case titted as Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan &
Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (supra),
Uppala Bixam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
(supra), Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 80/90
(supra) and Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab
(supra) is that when a case is solely based on
circumstantial evidence and the circumstance against
the accused, if any does not lead to the irresistible
conclusion that the accused has committed the
crime, he is entitled to acquittal but present case is
rather on better footing because in the present case,
basic parameters of offence in question including last
seen theory, motive, scientific evidence coupled with
circumstantial evidence has been duly proved on
record which points towards guilt of accused and thus
law relied upon on behalf of accused is not squarely
and fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
State vs Accused on 19 November, 2012
77. Fourthly, that the prosecution could not prove beyond
suspicion and reasonable doubt five golden principles as laid down in
case of Sanatan Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal, (supra), and Musheer
Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra). It
could not be established that in all human probability the murder of
deceased must have been committed by the accused.
Hari Om @ Hero vs State Of U.P. on 5 January, 2021
33. In any case, apart from the fingerprints, there was nothing else on
record against these two accused. It was observed by this Court in Musheer
Khan alias Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6:
State vs Vinod Etc on 14 September, 2011
The top line
principles to decide such type of cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
latest judgment 'Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs.
State Of M.P. 2010 [3] JCC 1648' (supra), in this case it has
categorically been observed by the Hon'ble Court that the presence
of innocence of accused has a dominant role in deciding such cases.
Station vs Purushottam Dashrath Borate on 25 September, 2012
Satish Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 10 February, 2014
The Apex Court in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC, 748, considered the limited nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by an illustration in Paragraph 57 which is quoted below-: