Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.25 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sanjay @ Kaka Shri Nawabuddin @ Nawab ... vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 7 February, 2001
7. Per contra, Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned Deputy Government
Advocate appearing for the State / respondent, would support the
impugned judgment and would submit that the prosecution has
been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and
there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence available on
record to connect the two appellants with the offence in question
and therefore they have rightly been convicted and minor
discrepancies in the prosecution case cannot be a ground to
reject the prosecution case, at all. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned
State counsel, would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of Sanjay alias Kaka v. State (NCT of
Delhi)9 and Krishnamoorthy and another v. State by
Inspector of Police and others 10 to buttress her submissions.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Tulsiram Kanu vs The State on 29 January, 1951
Thus, ornaments of the deceased
were found in possession of the appellants soon after the murder
and the memorandum statements of the appellants were
recorded and therefore it satisfies the requirement of important
Cr.A.No.681/2013
Page 18 of 20
time factor envisaged by the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Kanu
(supra) to invoke Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, as the ornaments were duly identified. Possession of the
articles of the deceased has duly been proved and identified by
the husband of the deceased - Jitaran Das Bande (PW-1) and
daughter of the deceased - Rajkumari Dhritlahre (PW-8) as
belonging to the deceased. This would meet the requirement of
Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act and as such,
murder and robbery are proved to be integral parts of one and
the same transaction and therefore the presumption permitted
under Section 114, Illustration (a), of the Evidence Act, would
apply and it is held that the trial Court has rightly held that it is the
appellants who not only committed the murder of deceased
Punni Bai but also robbed her gold and silver ornaments which
form part of one and the same transaction for which the
prosecution has led ample evidence to connect the appellants
with the offence in question.
Wasim Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 12 March, 1956
19. Thereafter, in the matter of Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar
Cr.A.No.681/2013
Page 14 of 20
Pradesh13, the Supreme Court posed a question for
consideration, whether the evidence in the case establishes that
the appellant murdered and robbed Ram Dularey and their
Lordships answered the question that recent and unexplained
possession of stolen articles can well be taken to be presumptive
evidence of the charge of murder as well as robbery.