Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)
Dharmishthaben Jayantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025 cites

Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 May, 1962

31. We may profitably refer the judgment of 5 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in case of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74, wherein while interpreting Section 201 of the IPC, it was held that, "Thus, these two appellants have been rightly convicted and their appeals are dismissed. In regard of the case of Ramanujdas and Jaidevi, the findings of the High Court is that, the dead bodies of Kamla and her son Madhusudan were not found in the house of Ramanujdas and they must have therefore, been removed; that an attempt was made to wash out the blood stains from the inside the rooms and also outside on the roof; that the dead bodies could not have been removed without the knowledge and active cooperation of Ramanujdas and Jaidevi and further that, both Ramanujdas and Jaidevi absconded. On these basis, the conviction of these appellants was held by the High Court to Page 28 of 32 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/738/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined be justified. It is true that the murder was committed in the house of Ramanujdas and that there is the evidence to show that the blood inside and outside the living rooms was washed and attempt was made to obliterate any sign of it though it was unsuccessful. It also may be that, both Ramanujdas and Jaidevi had knowledge of the removal of the dead bodies, but what Section 201 requires is causing any evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear or for giving any information respecting the offence which a person knows or believes to be false. In this case, there is no evidence of either. It is not shown that these two appellants cause any evidence to disappear. There may be a very strong suspicion that if from the house dead bodies are removed, or blood was washed, person placed in the position of the appellants must have had a hand in it but still that remains a suspicion even a strong suspicion at that. It is true that they were absconding, but merely absconding will not fill the gap or supply the evidence which is necessary to prove the ingredients of Section 201 of the IPC. In our opinion, the case against Ramanujdas and Jaidevi has not been made out. Their appeals must therefore be allowed and they be set at liberty."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 103 - R Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next