Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (4.66 seconds)
Laxman Pundlik Suvarnakar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 14 July, 2017 cites

Bachhu Narain Singh vs Naresh Yadav And Others on 19 December, 2003

The conduct and demeanor of key witness of the prosecution appears suspicious and against the human behavioural pattern. If in reality the alleged incident would have taken place in the wee hours of morning, PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai should have ventilated the grievance against the accused to the onlookers, denizens, passerby, etc., Moreover, there were no efforts to shift their injured daughter Shilavati to the hospital for medical treatment at the earliest. They maintained silence uptill 9.00 p.m. and thereafter the PW-3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {28} Crapl 239.13 F.odt Laxman blamed the assailants for injuries sustained to his daughter Shilavati for the first point of time in his FIR (Exh.54). Taking recourse of the legal guidelines delineated in the cases (1) Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs. Naresh Yadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2) Rajeevan and another vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) Harijana Thirupala and ors vs. Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821, we are of the opinion that there is serious doubt about the occurrence of alleged incident of assault, resulting into fatal injuries to victim Shilavati. 30] The prosecution much more gave emphasis on the legal issue of motive of the crime. There were litigation on account of land dispute in between the PW-3 Laxman and accused. Taking umbrage of the land dispute, the accused with motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman attacked his daughter in mistake. It is imperative to appreciate that the motive is double edged weapon, which cuts both ways, helping or harming, both the prosecution and the defence. It is to be noted that the motive cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge although proof of motive may lend assistance to the evidence with regard to the actual occurrence; nor an offender can be set free simply for want of motive in the prosecution case. Where there is some motive to commit crime but no reliable evidence is available to connect any of the accused with the alleged crime, the accused persons would entitle to be acquitted for the charges pitted against them. Obviously, the motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to commit offence. Motive is the reason which induces or activates ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {29} Crapl 239.13 F.odt a man to do a certain act. In the instant case, we would reiterate that the alleged crime has an chequered history of litigation. Prior to the alleged incident of assault on victim Shilavati, there were complaint against accused under Money Laundering Act as well as there was a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3 Laxman at the behest of appellant Ishwar. These circumstances are sufficient for drawing an inference that there was hostile atmosphere amongst the accused. The PW-3 Laxman and accused were at logger-heads following the land dispute. According to prosecution, the accused with a motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman in mistake attacked his daughter. As mentioned supra, the motive is a double edged weapon and when there existed serious enmity between the parties, the motive for accused to kill first informant Laxman and motive for first informant Laxman to implicate the accused was equally balanced; then the court has to look to surrounding circumstances to find out the truth. It is to be noted that the accused came forward with a specific defence that on account of animosities, PW-3 Laxman embroiled them falsely in this case. In view of attending circumstances on record and suspicious nature of evidence of the PW-3 Laxman discussed above, we find substance in the defence propounded on behalf of the accused. We would reiterate that where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to prove the crime is not satisfactory even strong motive cannot furnish the lacuna in the prosecution case. The factor of motive though relevant is required to be considered alongwith rest of the evidence and it cannot be treated as evidence of crime itself. Therefore, mere enmity in between the accused and PW-3 Laxman ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {30} Crapl 239.13 F.odt following land dispute, would not be a decisive factor to draw adverse inference against the accused in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Harijana Thirupala And Ors. vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., ... on 1 August, 2002

The conduct and demeanor of key witness of the prosecution appears suspicious and against the human behavioural pattern. If in reality the alleged incident would have taken place in the wee hours of morning, PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai should have ventilated the grievance against the accused to the onlookers, denizens, passerby, etc., Moreover, there were no efforts to shift their injured daughter Shilavati to the hospital for medical treatment at the earliest. They maintained silence uptill 9.00 p.m. and thereafter the PW-3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {28} Crapl 239.13 F.odt Laxman blamed the assailants for injuries sustained to his daughter Shilavati for the first point of time in his FIR (Exh.54). Taking recourse of the legal guidelines delineated in the cases (1) Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs. Naresh Yadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2) Rajeevan and another vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) Harijana Thirupala and ors vs. Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821, we are of the opinion that there is serious doubt about the occurrence of alleged incident of assault, resulting into fatal injuries to victim Shilavati. 30] The prosecution much more gave emphasis on the legal issue of motive of the crime. There were litigation on account of land dispute in between the PW-3 Laxman and accused. Taking umbrage of the land dispute, the accused with motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman attacked his daughter in mistake. It is imperative to appreciate that the motive is double edged weapon, which cuts both ways, helping or harming, both the prosecution and the defence. It is to be noted that the motive cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge although proof of motive may lend assistance to the evidence with regard to the actual occurrence; nor an offender can be set free simply for want of motive in the prosecution case. Where there is some motive to commit crime but no reliable evidence is available to connect any of the accused with the alleged crime, the accused persons would entitle to be acquitted for the charges pitted against them. Obviously, the motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to commit offence. Motive is the reason which induces or activates ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {29} Crapl 239.13 F.odt a man to do a certain act. In the instant case, we would reiterate that the alleged crime has an chequered history of litigation. Prior to the alleged incident of assault on victim Shilavati, there were complaint against accused under Money Laundering Act as well as there was a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3 Laxman at the behest of appellant Ishwar. These circumstances are sufficient for drawing an inference that there was hostile atmosphere amongst the accused. The PW-3 Laxman and accused were at logger-heads following the land dispute. According to prosecution, the accused with a motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman in mistake attacked his daughter. As mentioned supra, the motive is a double edged weapon and when there existed serious enmity between the parties, the motive for accused to kill first informant Laxman and motive for first informant Laxman to implicate the accused was equally balanced; then the court has to look to surrounding circumstances to find out the truth. It is to be noted that the accused came forward with a specific defence that on account of animosities, PW-3 Laxman embroiled them falsely in this case. In view of attending circumstances on record and suspicious nature of evidence of the PW-3 Laxman discussed above, we find substance in the defence propounded on behalf of the accused. We would reiterate that where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to prove the crime is not satisfactory even strong motive cannot furnish the lacuna in the prosecution case. The factor of motive though relevant is required to be considered alongwith rest of the evidence and it cannot be treated as evidence of crime itself. Therefore, mere enmity in between the accused and PW-3 Laxman ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:44:05 ::: {30} Crapl 239.13 F.odt following land dispute, would not be a decisive factor to draw adverse inference against the accused in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 288 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next