Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal on 28 April, 1992
In State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra
Prakash Mittal, [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : 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 the 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 illtreated 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
Hon'ble Apex Court reversed the judgement of the High Court
acquitting the accused and convicted him under section 302 IPC.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Rajendran on 22 September, 1999
In
State of T.N. vs. Rajendran, [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40]
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 9pm 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 be any hesitation to
come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was
the perpetrator of crime."
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 1999
24. Substantially similar view was taken in Koli Lakhmanbhai
Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Prithi vs. State
of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536; Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777. In view of the same, that part of
Crl. A. No. 1287/2011 Page 23 of 37
testimony of Nazo that after taking dinner, she went to the house of
her bua leaving behind her parents in the matrimonial home, is
admissible in evidence.
Prithi vs State Of Haryana on 27 July, 2010
24. Substantially similar view was taken in Koli Lakhmanbhai
Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Prithi vs. State
of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536; Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777. In view of the same, that part of
Crl. A. No. 1287/2011 Page 23 of 37
testimony of Nazo that after taking dinner, she went to the house of
her bua leaving behind her parents in the matrimonial home, is
admissible in evidence.
State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005
In State of U.P. vs. Satish AIR 2005 SC 1000 it was held as
under: