Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anjan Kumar Sarma vs State Of Assam on 23 May, 2017
22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of
aforesaid judgment rendered by Their Lordship of Supreme
Court in the matter of Anjan Kumar (supra) and Tipparam
7 (2017) 14 SCC 359
13
(supra), it is quite vivid that prosecution has only proved that
the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and that the
appellants were last seen with the deceased and no other
connecting link have been satisfactorily established and no
other incriminating circumstances which leads to the
hypothesis of guilt against the appellants persons have been
proved particularly when the accused persons and the
deceased were last seen together on 26.06.2013 at evening
and the dead body of the deceased was recovered on
28.06.2013 at 2.00 pm vide Ex.P/7. As such, there was long
gap of about 40 hours when the accused persons and the
deceased were last seen alive and the dead body of the
deceased was found. There is no other such evidence that the
deceased and the appellants were seen together just before
his death and as such, there was long gap and possibility of
other person coming in between cannot be ruled out. In
absence of any positive evidence it would be unsafe to convict
the appellants only on the basis of theory of last seen
together. Even otherwise, in absence of availability of other
incriminating circumstances, the theory of last seen together
cannot be made sole basis of conviction of the appellants
under Section 302 of the IPC.
Tipparam Prabhakar vs State Of A.P on 29 April, 2009
22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of
aforesaid judgment rendered by Their Lordship of Supreme
Court in the matter of Anjan Kumar (supra) and Tipparam
7 (2017) 14 SCC 359
13
(supra), it is quite vivid that prosecution has only proved that
the death of deceased was homicidal in nature and that the
appellants were last seen with the deceased and no other
connecting link have been satisfactorily established and no
other incriminating circumstances which leads to the
hypothesis of guilt against the appellants persons have been
proved particularly when the accused persons and the
deceased were last seen together on 26.06.2013 at evening
and the dead body of the deceased was recovered on
28.06.2013 at 2.00 pm vide Ex.P/7. As such, there was long
gap of about 40 hours when the accused persons and the
deceased were last seen alive and the dead body of the
deceased was found. There is no other such evidence that the
deceased and the appellants were seen together just before
his death and as such, there was long gap and possibility of
other person coming in between cannot be ruled out. In
absence of any positive evidence it would be unsafe to convict
the appellants only on the basis of theory of last seen
together. Even otherwise, in absence of availability of other
incriminating circumstances, the theory of last seen together
cannot be made sole basis of conviction of the appellants
under Section 302 of the IPC.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
16. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 3, has clearly
laid down the factors to be taken into account in adjudication
of cases of circumstantial evidence, which states as under :-
Arjun Marik vs State Of Bihar on 2 March, 1994
24. Even after the incident, Akbar (A-1) again came back to
the house of deceased and gave his motorcycle to Santoshi
(PW/9) (wife of deceased husband), as such, there is no
ingredient of offence under Section 364 of the IPC is available
in the instant case. As such, We are of the considered opinion
that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in
convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 read
with section 34 of the IPC and Section 201 read with section
34 of IPC only on the basis of last seen together finding it fully
established in absence of motive for offence on the part of the
appellants and in absence of any incriminating evidence
against the appellants in the light of principles laid down by
15
Supreme Court in the matters of Arjun Marik, Sanjay
Thakran, Kanhaiya Lal and Tipparam (supra), We hereby
set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentence so
awarded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated
25.11.2014. The appellants herein are acquitted of the
charges of Sections 364, 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC.
The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.