Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Shabuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 1 February, 2022

Dharmender Singh vs State on 16 February, 2026

In the case of Sd. Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (supra), the allegation against one accused person called Moulana was that he murdered the deceased out of jealously by slitting his throat and thereafter concealed the deceased's body, stole his belongings including cash of ₹2,92,629/-, bike and phone and thereafter fled the scene. Further, it was alleged that on the following day, accused Moulana, with the help of another accused person who had agreed to help him for a consideration of ₹30,000/-, threw the body of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR CRL.REV.P. 285/2014 Page 8 of 14 Signing Date:16.02.2026 20:23:42 deceased on the burning pyre to obliterate the evidence. Thereafter, on the following day, accused Moulana partially deposited a sum of ₹2,40,000/- in the bank and retained the remaining amount. Accused Moulana was thereafter charged with the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 379 of the IPC and the other accused was charged with offences under Sections 379 and 201 of the IPC. The Trial Court thereafter acquitted both the accused persons of the charges under Sections 379/302/201 of the IPC but convicted them for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC considering that the accused persons were found in possession of cash and because they were not able to account for the possession of such a huge amount of cash. The said conviction was upheld by the High Court while noting that a mere claim by the accused persons that the cash belongs to them is insufficient to prove that the cash belonged to the accused persons.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gangolu Wilson Kumar vs State Of Telangana In Crl.A.No.3605 Of ... on 31 March, 2026

15. In this case, the factum of theft has been stated by PWs.1 to 6, PWs.7 and 8 are the seizure witnesses, though, PW.7 turned hostile. PW.8 supported prosecution case, PW.10 is investigating officer, whose action in seizing the huge amount of money from the possession of the present petitioners has been proved. The confession of the present petitioners before PW.8 as mediator is not the solitary confession, but it was leading to the recovery of huge amount of money. The fact suggests that Rs.12,00,000/- was seized from the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,94,000/- was seized from the possession of the 2nd petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioners did not disclose any account in respect of their possession of huge amount of money. The entire reading of evidence of prosecution in this particular case is totally different to the entire evidence of the case of Sd. Shabuddin (supra). The account of possession of the money by the present petitioners, who allegedly confessed possession of stolen amount, was not disclosed. In the case of Sd. Shabuddin, it was also not disclosed either before the appellant Court or before the trial Court. As there are no evidence on record before the learned Apex Court in the case of Sd. Shabuddin, the learned Apex Court has set aside conviction of the trial 10 Court under Section 411 IPC solely on ground that both the accused was unable to account the possession of such huge amount of money. But in this particular case, there are other witnesses to prove that the present petitioners were in possession of huge amount of stolen money. In this case, the evidence of PW.8 was alleged to be a stock mediator cannot be accepted. The explanation made by the learned trial Court in this regard is accepted. The prosecution has no reason to frame a criminal case against present petitioners. Moreover, if PW.1 wanted to frame a case, he must mention the name of the petitioners in the complaint. Money was seized during the course of investigation in the presence of PW.8, thus, in my view, the observation of the learned trial Court suffers no illegality and impropriety. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, appears to me justified.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Salman on 18 May, 2026

22. Therefore, placing on record all the circumstantial evidence that the accused snatched the chain of the complaiant and ran and was later apprehended by the public persons leads to the conclusion the accused has committed the theft of the said gold chain without any doubt raising presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act. No other view can be traced out in the present matter. Since the theft and the recovery is proved the presumption u/s 114(a) comes into existence. (Reliance is placed upon SD Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1