Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.60 seconds)Section 176 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 1 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anant Chintaman Lagu vs The State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1959
In this connection it would be apposite', to quote from the
judgment in Lagu's case(2) at page 506 where it was
observed:-
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Govinda Reddy & Anr vs State Of Mysore on 19 August, 1958
no doubt by juries on evidence which was wholly
circumstantial but in both those cases neither the body was
found nor any trace of the body was found and there was no
confession by the accused of any participation in the crime
and the conviction was based on the occurrence of so many
separate facts and circumstances all pointing to the fact of
death on or about a particular date and excluded any
reasonable hypothesis other than the death of the person
alleged to have been murdered and this was held to be of
Bufficient probative force to establish death. In the
present case the circumstances which have been proved and to
repeat the circumstances are, strained relations between the
husband and wife, motive to escape the giving of money and
land or maintenance to the wife or the child, suddenly
leaving the village at night with two others and almost
simultaneous disappearance of Kamla and her son, no search
for her and absolute callousness or the part of Raghav,
subsequent false explanation being given and his absconding
are all circumstances from which the courts below were
justified in concluding the Kamla and her son were murdered
and that Raghav had a predominent motive to commit the
murder. The High Court found that Raghav had a strong
motive to commit the murder and after taking all the
circumstances into consideration came to the conclusion that
the Sessions Judge had rightly convicted Raghav of murder.
No two cases can have the same facts but the principles
applied in placing the various links in the chain of events
and circumstances by the High Court are, in our opinion
wholly correct and they have rightly drawn the conclusion
that the appellant Raghav was guilty of the offence with
which he was charged. The inculpatory facts which have been
proved were, in the opinion of the High Court, inconsistent
with the innocence of the appellant and are not capable of
explanation or any other hypothesis except his
277
guilt and as was said by this Court in Govinda v. State of
Mysore(1).