Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.23 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Rajendran on 22 September, 1999
In State of Tamil
Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found
dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence
showed that the accused and his wife were seen together
in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out
in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught
fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental
fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a
daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife
died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not
on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot
State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992
In State of U.P. v. Dr.
Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical
evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation
during late night hours or early morning and her body
was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of
the husband was that wife had committed suicide by
burning herself and that he was not at home at that time.
The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed
that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were
strained and further the evidence showed that both of
them were in one room in the night. It was held that the
chain of circumstances was complete and it was the
husband who committed the murder of his wife by
strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the
judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and
convicted him under Section 302 IPC.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ganesh Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 October, 2001
21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where
no eye- witness account is available, there is another
principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle
is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the
accused and the said accused either offers no
explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be
untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the
chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view
has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court.
[See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
(para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR
1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
(2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand
v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
Nika Ram vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 April, 1972
In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR
1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the
accused alone was with his wife in the house when she
was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the
relations of the accused with her were strained would, in
the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to
his guilt.
Ganeshlal vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 April, 1992
In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3
SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of
his wife which took place inside his house. It was
observed that when the death had occurred in his
custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a
plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of
the prosecution case coupled with absence of any
explanation were held to be inconsistent with the
innocence of the accused, but consistent with the
hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the
commission of murder of his wife.