Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.55 seconds)
Shri Madhusudhan Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 28 March, 2019 cites

Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 August, 2002

[37] So exception has been curved out by Section 304 of the IPC. Some cases in this regard are catalogued for ready reference - Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2012) 8 SCC 289, Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed And Others Vs. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 175 and Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1985 SC 465.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 96 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Badam Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2003

[38] At this juncture, this court is would like to refer to a decision of the apex court, as relied by Mr. Choudhury, learned P.P. in Badam Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Page 18 of 20 AIR 2004 SC 26 where the apex court has observed that there was no motive for the accused to kill the deceased, even though existence of motive loses significance when there is reliable testimony, in a case where the opponent testimony is to be suspect. Existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding probability of the prosecution case. In that case, the driver of the deceased (P.W.7) had stated that even though there was some disputes between the appellant and the deceased 3 years before the occurrence, that dispute was amicably settled and the disputed land was shared, half and half, by them. Thereafter, they continued to cultivate their respective plots of land and there had been no untoward incident thereafter. The apex court held in that perspective, that the prosecution has failed to establish a motive for offence. The fact that the deceased met a violent death is not surprising as he has committed a variety of criminal offences including robbery, abduction, kidnapping, attempt to murder etc. Possibility of his having killed by one of his detractors cannot be ruled out. The apex court however did not stop there, in the following passage (para 21) it has been observed as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 96 - B P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next