Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995
The judgment in Gulab Chand's case was relied upon for the same proposition in a subsequent judgment also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka . In the present case it is established that robbery and murder were a part of the same transaction and so the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the offence of murder. Since the State has not filed any appeal we are not making any comment about the trial Court not finding the appellant guilty of the offences of robbery and rape.
Praveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2003
In a case of robbery-cum-murder which came up in appeal before the Apex Court and which is reported as , Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka evidence of police witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of the recoveries of stolen articles at the instance of the accused was attacked on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses at the time of making of the disclosure statement by the accused. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the police officials can be independently relied upon then there is no prohibition in law that the same cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. The appellant-accused in the present case has failed in his attempt to create suspicion in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the testimony of the police witnesses of recovery whose evidence we find to be wholly reliable and in view of the reliable evidence of these police officials we are not inclined to accept the bare denial of the accused regarding the recovery of stolen articles from his possession or at his instance and to reject the evidence on oath of these recovery witnesses. We are, therefore, of the view that it stands established beyond any doubt that from the possession of the appellant - accused valuable articles, as shown in seizure memos Ex. PW-14/C & D, were recovered on 18-3-96 when he was apprehended from the house in Munirka Village. Those items included one Yashika camera which is the stolen property of the present case and has been claimed by the complainant's husband(PW-6) to be his. On 27-3-96 the appellant had got recovered more stolen articles from a jeweller's(PW-23) shop. Those items seized vide memo Ex. PW-22/B included one BPL Sanyo VCR(Ex. P-1) which belonged to the complainant of this case who in his testimony in Court claimed VCR also to be belonging to him. The complainant also claimed it to be thiers. The appellant has not offered any explanation for being found in possession of the afore-said recovered articles. He has not claimed their ownership. In these circumstances it can be said that VCR and camera recovered at his instance are the stolen items of the present case. The complainant and her husband(PW-6) have claimed their ownership and in her cross-examination that fact was not challenged. These articles were mentioned in the list of stolen articles also given by the complainant to the police. Regarding the recovery of VCR from the shop of PW-23 Sushil Verma counsel for the appellant had argued that this recovery should be discarded since PW-23 has not supported the prosecution. However, we do not find any force in this contention. PW-23 has while turning hostile admitted his signature on the seizure memo Ex. PW-22/B which recites that VCR Ex. P-1 was produced by him. So, it is clear that he has tried to help the accused out of fear or otherwise. Police witnesses' evidence is reliable and can be accepted despite the fact that PW-23 has not supported the prosecution. As per PWs 22 and 25 PW-23 had produced one girvinama also executed by the appellant - accused the appellant has admitted having written that girvinama but has claimed that he was asked by the police to write the same. We are not inclined to accept this plea in the absence of any material from which it could be inferred that the police could do so to falsely implicate the accused.
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mukund @ Kundu Mishra & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 1997
14. We, therefore, have, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the recovery of stolen articles belonging to the complainant from the appellant-accused establishes that the appellant - accused was the murderer of the deceased. For this view we find full support from a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund @ Kundu Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh , wherein it was held that when the prosecution successfully proves that the offences of robbery and murder were committed in one and the same transaction and soon thereafter the stolen properties were recovered from some person the Court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder.