Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Prashant Jain vs State on 8 January, 2014 cites

Rajbir & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 26 May, 2009

8. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand with all her vehemence urged that all these appellants were trying to hide their crime under the cover of alleged statement made by the victim to the PW-13 (Ambulance incharge) and PW-25, Doctor Nitin Kumar, who had conducted the medical examination of the victim and prepared the MLC, were informed by the victim that the cause of her getting burnt was due to accidental fire while working in the kitchen. Contention raised by the learned APP was that the FSL report proved on record as Ex.PW-33/A supported by the post mortem report (Ex.PW-27/A), supplementary post mortem report (Ex.PW-32/B), testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9, PW-10 and the other corroborated evidence, clearly proves that the death of the victim was an unnatural death and the said unnatural death resulted due to her murder at the hands of these appellants. Learned APP for the State had invited attention of this court to the FSL report Ex.PW-33/A wherein Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer clearly opined that the Ex.3A and Ex.3B gave positive test for organophosphorous insecticides and Ex.1 and Ex.2 were found to contain residue of kerosene oil. Learned APP also submitted that after receipt of the said FSL Report, Crl.A.No. 1452/2010, 1454/2010 & 1455/2010 Page 7 of 20 supplementary opinion was sought by the prosecution from the post mortem doctor and vide supplementary post mortem report proved on record as Ex.PW-32/B the post mortem doctor opined that death of the victim was due to combined effect of shock due to burn injuries and organophosphorous poison. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajbir vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2011 SC 568, learned APP for the State submitted that this court may enhance the sentence of these appellants after taking into consideration the medical and scientific evidence proved on record or in the alternative, to remand the matter back to the trial court for framing the additional charge under Section 302/34 of IPC against all the appellants. Learned APP for the State also addressed extensive arguments on the other aspects of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 162 - Full Document
1