Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tukaram Dnyaneshwar Patil vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 13 March, 2015
Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2007) 10 SCC 445, Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home
and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was
committed by somebody else or that there was possibility of an
outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain
the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.
State Of Rajasthan vs Thakur Singh on 30 June, 2014
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh reported in
(2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 211, wife of the accused died
of unnatural death in a room occupied only by both of them.
There was no evidence of anybody else entering the room. Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that facts relevant to cause of death being
(17 of 22)
[CRLA-293/2011]
only known to accused, and he did not explain them, therefore,
there is strong presumption that accused murdered his wife.
Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court
and restored the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Judge.
Kala @ Chandrakala vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police on 12 August, 2016
(20 of 22)
[CRLA-293/2011]
In Kala Alias Chandrakala Vs. State through Inspector
of Police (supra), the accused/appellant, wife of the deceased,
along with her father and nephew allegedly strangulated deceased
to death with a saree and placed his body under a bridge of
canal. The case depends upon circumstantial evidence and extra
judicial confession made by the appellant to sister of the
deceased, however, the appellant was not having good
relationship with her. Body was not recovered at the instance of
accused. Further, recovery of a moped and pieces of nylon saree
were not proved to be related to commission of offence and to be
incriminating materials. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
appellant had not kept quiet and had clearly stated in her
statement under Section 313 of CrPC that she had gone to police
station along with photograph of deceased and had also stated
that the deceased frequently used to go outside for 2 to 5 days. It
explains her conduct and nothing more can be attributed to her
exclusive knowledge which she was require to explain within
preview of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Knowledge of any
other fact is attributable to her in view of evidence adduced in the
case and the appellant was acquitted giving her the benefit of
doubt. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case,
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in this case, is not of
much help to the appellant.
Vijay Shankar vs State Of Haryana on 4 August, 2015
In the case of Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 644, Hon'ble
(12 of 22)
[CRLA-293/2011]
Apex Court has held that in each and every case, it is not
incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.
Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the
offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit
the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of
evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to
prove it's case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of
evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove
it's case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the
prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the
prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands
careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the
present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes
the court to be circumspect in the matter of assessment of
evidence and this aspect was not kept in view by the High Court
and the trial court.
Jose @ Pappachan vs Sub Inspector Of Police, Koyilandy & Anr on 3 October, 2016
In Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police,
Koyilandy & Anr. (supra), It was alleged that the appellant
smothered his wife inside the room of his house, strangulated her
by using a plastice rope and then hanged her from a hook of the
roof of the work area of the house by using saree and thus,
brutally murdered her. Testimony of defence witness DW-1 (son of
appellant) that relationship between his mother and father was
very cordial. Medical evidence also does not decisively establish
case of homicidal hanging. Doctor performing the post-mortem
examination, highlighted the absence of characteristic attributes
(22 of 22)
[CRLA-293/2011]
attendant on death due to homicidal hanging following
strangulation, further reinforce the possibility of suicide. There
was no any persuasive evidence to held that at the relevant time,
the appellant was present in his house. Hon'ble Apex court has
held that it is impermissible to cast any burden on him under
Section 106 of Evidence Act. Due to difference in facts and
circumstances of the case, the law down in this case, is also not of
much help to the Appellant.