Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982
Men do not act wholly without motive and failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime nor proof of motive is eve an indispensable factor for conviction, as was held in Ashok Kumar case (supra).
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 1998
23. So far the above evidence of PW 7 and 10 that the mother of the accused stated before them that the accused committed murder of his wife by cutting her throat with a knife is concerned, the same having been denied by PW 2 is not becoming of any aid to the prosecution. As regards the above retracted extra judicial confession, as deposed by PWs 7 and 10, Mr. Bhattacharya relying on the cases of Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1999 SC 215 and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh 1999(4) Cr 142 (SC) contended that as extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence, it should not be acted upon without independent corroboration. It is the substance of an extra judicial confession which really matters. In this case, the above evidence of PWs 7 and 10 is consistent with each other. But as regard PW 7, there appears to be a bit discrepancy in regard to the time of his arrival at the P.O., as he stated that he reached the P.O. at about 10.30/ 11.00 a.m. The learned Court below appears to have dealt with the matter rightly. PW 7 is a rustic villager who can anyhow sign his name by crawling and as such correct version about time of his arrival by arithmetical calculation cannot be expected of him. PW 11 did not state any specific time of his arrest of the accused but it was between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. and he sent the dead body of the victim at about 9.15 a.m. which necessarily leads to show that PW 7 reached the P.O. obviously before 9.00 a.m. Since he arrived at the P.O. when police officer was already present, the chance of making extra judicial confession by the accused before PW 7 in presence of a police officer cannot be taken into consideration.
Shankaria vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 April, 1978
24. Confession even if retracted can form the basis of conviction without corroboration if it is found to be perfectly voluntary, true and trustworthy, as was held in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248.
Thimma Alias Thimma Raju vs State Of Mysore on 2 April, 1970
An extra judicial confession made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it is admissible in evidence and deserves to be acted upon, this having a high probative value, as was observed in Thimma v. State of Mysore .
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Abdul Samad & Another on 16 March, 1962
25. Mr. Bhattacharya on citing the case of State of U.P. v. Abdul reported in 1997(2) Cr 78 (SC) next argued that the object of inquest is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what was the apparent cause of death, and the question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is totally foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceeding, but here the learned Court below over stepped and took into consideration the inquest report as one of the grounds to base the conviction. Indubitably, the above is the legal position relating to an inquest report ad to that extent one of the reasons of the learned Court below for finding the accused guilty is erroneous. But it makes no difference on account of so many circumstances going against the accused as point out above.
State Of Haryana vs Sher Singh & Ors on 24 February, 1981
26. Mr. Bhattacharya next contended that in a case where only circumstantial evidence is available, normally motive behind the crime has to be shown, but in this case evidence on motive is totally absent. The prosecution is not to prove motive for it is known only to the accused, as was held the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that the Court has to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. Proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about likelihood of the authorship but its absence only demands search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient.
Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973
27. Mr. Bhattacharya, at the end, on citing the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh contended that as the present case hangs upon circumstantial evidence alone and the chain in the circumstances cannot be said to be complete, his client is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Benefit of doubt means doubt of a reasonable mind, not of a vacillating mind. The prosecution need not arrive at conclusive proof, and what is needed is proof beyond reasonable doubt.