Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 412 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Devendra Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 1978
23. Much was argued on behalf of the appellants on the confessional statement of the accused Santu recorded by the Magistrate. It is to be noted that the trial Court did not place any reliance on the said confessional statement inasmuch as the PW 6 who actually recorded the statement was not confronted with the said statement. The defence did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the PW 6 on it. Moreover the ld. counsel for the appellants rightly argued placing reliance on the decisions (Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh), 1991 Cal Cri LR 121 (State v. Prosenjit Tapadar) and (Shivappa v. State of Karnataka) that the confessional statement of the accused Santu cannot be treated as a voluntary statement. It is nowhere indicated in the report that the Magistrate told the accused that he would not be remanded to the police lock-up even if he did not confess his guilt. It is also not indicated in the report of the Magistrate that the accused was actually kept in Jail Custody in segregation in terms of the order passed and that before production of the accused before the Magistrate, he was not given in the clutches of the police. So it appears that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 164 as well as the Rules and Guidelines framed in this regard and accordingly, the said confession was unworthy of credence. The ld. Sessions Judge rightly discussed this issue and did not place any reliance on such statement. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the alleged fire on Tinku is not to be construed as the intentional murder inasmuch as there was no evidence that to stop that victim, any of the. miscreants fired on him. An attempt was made to argue that it was merely an accidental firing without any intention to commit a murder and as such, all the accused persons including the appellants should not be found guilty under Section 396 of the Code.
Shivappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 1994
23. Much was argued on behalf of the appellants on the confessional statement of the accused Santu recorded by the Magistrate. It is to be noted that the trial Court did not place any reliance on the said confessional statement inasmuch as the PW 6 who actually recorded the statement was not confronted with the said statement. The defence did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the PW 6 on it. Moreover the ld. counsel for the appellants rightly argued placing reliance on the decisions (Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh), 1991 Cal Cri LR 121 (State v. Prosenjit Tapadar) and (Shivappa v. State of Karnataka) that the confessional statement of the accused Santu cannot be treated as a voluntary statement. It is nowhere indicated in the report that the Magistrate told the accused that he would not be remanded to the police lock-up even if he did not confess his guilt. It is also not indicated in the report of the Magistrate that the accused was actually kept in Jail Custody in segregation in terms of the order passed and that before production of the accused before the Magistrate, he was not given in the clutches of the police. So it appears that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 164 as well as the Rules and Guidelines framed in this regard and accordingly, the said confession was unworthy of credence. The ld. Sessions Judge rightly discussed this issue and did not place any reliance on such statement. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the alleged fire on Tinku is not to be construed as the intentional murder inasmuch as there was no evidence that to stop that victim, any of the. miscreants fired on him. An attempt was made to argue that it was merely an accidental firing without any intention to commit a murder and as such, all the accused persons including the appellants should not be found guilty under Section 396 of the Code.
Kalika Tiwari , Uma Shankar Rai ,Vijay ... vs State Of Bihar on 25 March, 1997
25. So it is concluded that when murder was committed in course of the commission of the dacoity, it is not possible to construe the alleged offence either under Section 395 or under Section 397 of the IPC. On the other hand, the ld. Public Prosecutor rightly placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kalika Tiwari v. State of Bihar, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhoora, 1998 Cri LJ 478 : (AIR 1998 SC 254) in support of the contention that all the participants in a particular crime of dacoity with murder are to be construed equally under Section 396 of the IPC. So after a due consideration of the law on the point and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we come to a conclusion that the convicts were rightly found guilty under Section 396 of the IPC and they were rightly convicted thereunder.
State Of U.P vs Bhoora & Ors on 23 October, 1997
25. So it is concluded that when murder was committed in course of the commission of the dacoity, it is not possible to construe the alleged offence either under Section 395 or under Section 397 of the IPC. On the other hand, the ld. Public Prosecutor rightly placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kalika Tiwari v. State of Bihar, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhoora, 1998 Cri LJ 478 : (AIR 1998 SC 254) in support of the contention that all the participants in a particular crime of dacoity with murder are to be construed equally under Section 396 of the IPC. So after a due consideration of the law on the point and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we come to a conclusion that the convicts were rightly found guilty under Section 396 of the IPC and they were rightly convicted thereunder.