Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Pancho vs State Of Haryana on 20 October, 2011
In the case of Pancho vs. State of Haryana
1
(2008) 17 SCC 128
2
(2011) 10 SCC 165
3
(2012) 6 SCC 403
15
(supra) this Court did not convict the accused Pancho on the basis of
the confession statement of the co-accused in the absence of other
cogent evidence, inspite of the belated recovery of the alleged weapon
of murder.
Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2012
13. We would refer to the decision of this Court in Madhu vs. State of
Kerala5 the facts of which are relevant in the present case. In the said
case, the body of the deceased was found near her home with her
ornaments on her person missing. On the basis of the information
furnished by the accused recovery of the said ornaments was made.
This fact coupled with the sighting of the accused near the place of
crime was the basis for conviction. However, this Court reversed the
conviction on the ground that said recovery and sighting of the accused
near the deceased do not lead to the sole conclusion that murder was
committed by the accused only.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011
In State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar and
Anr.6 also it was held that where the only evidence against the accused
is recovery of stolen property, then although circumstances may
indicate that theft and murder might have been committed at the same
time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of
stolen property had committed murder. Also the recovery of looted
articles at the instance of the accused could not be relied upon in
5
(2012) 2 SCC 399
6
(2011) 11 SCC 666
18
absence of any details as to when and where such recovery was made
and in absence of any confession of commission of offence by the
accused. Besides, the seizure of the goods was not corroborated by
any independent witness in the present case.