Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Guna Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 March, 2021
20.In view of aforesaid, we find that the order of conviction and
sentence passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau,
Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No.50 of 1989 dated
10.05.2001 as affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2001 dated 23.7.2004
titled as Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand needs to be
interfered with.
Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 2020
16.We may reiterate that, suspicion howsoever grave it may be,
remains only a doubtful pigment in the story canvassed by the
prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable
doubt. [Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 765; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596; Pappu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2022) 10 SCC 321]. Save and except for the above,
there is no evidence: ocular, circumstantial or otherwise, which
could establish the guilt of the accused. There is no discovery of
any fact linking the accused to the crime sought to be proved,
much less, established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
Pappu vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 February, 2022
16.We may reiterate that, suspicion howsoever grave it may be,
remains only a doubtful pigment in the story canvassed by the
prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable
doubt. [Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 765; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596; Pappu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2022) 10 SCC 321]. Save and except for the above,
there is no evidence: ocular, circumstantial or otherwise, which
could establish the guilt of the accused. There is no discovery of
any fact linking the accused to the crime sought to be proved,
much less, established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)
p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and
‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
18.In normal course of proceedings, this Court does not interfere
with the concurrent finding of facts reached by both the courts
below. It is only in exceptional cases where we find the
concurrent findings to be absurd, leading to travesty of justice, it
is our duty to rectify miscarriage of justice. [Ramaphupala
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 474, Balak
Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219, Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai
V. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217].
Ramaphupala Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 1970
18.In normal course of proceedings, this Court does not interfere
with the concurrent finding of facts reached by both the courts
below. It is only in exceptional cases where we find the
concurrent findings to be absurd, leading to travesty of justice, it
is our duty to rectify miscarriage of justice. [Ramaphupala
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 474, Balak
Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219, Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai
V. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217].
A.N. Venkatesh And Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2005
16.We may reiterate that, suspicion howsoever grave it may be,
remains only a doubtful pigment in the story canvassed by the
prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable
doubt. [Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 765; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596; Pappu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2022) 10 SCC 321]. Save and except for the above,
there is no evidence: ocular, circumstantial or otherwise, which
could establish the guilt of the accused. There is no discovery of
any fact linking the accused to the crime sought to be proved,
much less, established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt.
State Of Bihar vs Jamuna Mahto on 21 April, 2010
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by appellant Guna Mahto,
found guilty of murdering his wife Smt. Deomatiya Devi under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Ld. Trial
Court, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 50 of 1989 titled as
State vs. Guna Mahto vide judgement dated 10.05.2001. The Ld.
Trial Court sentenced the appellant to a term of life
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2023.03.17
16:15:18 IST
Reason:
two years rigorous imprisonment in relation to the offence
punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
1