Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.82 seconds)Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006
When the appellant has not disputed the case of the
Prosecution that he took the deceased to Subhodaya lodge
and stayed with her in room No.104, the burden lies on
him to explain the cause of death of the deceased under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (See
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra5,
Babu and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu6 and Ram
Gulam Chaudhury vs. State of Bihar7).
Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
When the appellant has not disputed the case of the
Prosecution that he took the deceased to Subhodaya lodge
and stayed with her in room No.104, the burden lies on
him to explain the cause of death of the deceased under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (See
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra5,
Babu and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu6 and Ram
Gulam Chaudhury vs. State of Bihar7).
Ram Gulam Chaudhury And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 25 September, 2001
When the appellant has not disputed the case of the
Prosecution that he took the deceased to Subhodaya lodge
and stayed with her in room No.104, the burden lies on
him to explain the cause of death of the deceased under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (See
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra5,
Babu and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu6 and Ram
Gulam Chaudhury vs. State of Bihar7).
R. Rajendran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 1997
By maintaining absolute silence in this regard, the
appellant failed to discharge the said burden. As already
held, the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal
and therefore, the inevitable conclusion that could be
drawn is that the appellant, being in the company of the
deceased and having failed to explain the incriminating
circumstances, was responsible for killing his wife, which
also resulted in his committing the offence of foeticide.
4
AIR 2013 SC 3150 = 2013 (5) SCC 722
5
2006 (10) SCC 681
6
2013 (8) SCC 60
7
2001 (8) SCC 311
CVNR, J & TA, J
19 CrlA.No.493 of 2012
Dt:28.8.2018
The learned Counsel for the appellant placed heavy
reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in
R.Rajendran Nair vs. State of Kerala8. In the said case,
it was the specific case of the Prosecution that around 8.00
p.m., the accused therein slapped his wife on her face and
kicked on her chest and immediately thereafter, he along
with his daughter went to his parents' house but returned
alone, that between 8.15 and 8.30 p.m., the hanging took
place inside the house and that at that time, there was none
except the appellant. The Supreme Court, however,
declined to accept the plea of the Prosecution based on
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by holding
that the Prosecution failed to let in the evidence to show
that by the time, the accused returned, the deceased was
found alive. Thus, the said Judgment turned on its own
facts, which bear no similarity with the facts of the present
case.
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Phula Singh vs State Of H.P on 3 March, 2014
Though all the incriminating features such as his
staying along with the deceased in room No.104 of
Subhodaya lodge, the door being locked from outside, the
lock being broken open and the body found hanging were
put to him during his Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination, the
appellant has not come out with any specific explanation
regarding those incriminating features or set up any
specific defence such as alibi. He gave one standard
answer to every question by saying that he has not
committed the offence. Though the appellant has a right
to be silent, from his failure to deny the incriminating
features by setting up specific defence, the Court can draw
adverse inference (see Phula Singh vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh1, Ram Naresh Vs. State of
Chattisgarh2, Munish Mubar vs. State of Haryana3 and
1
AIR 2014 SC 1256 = 2014(4) SCC 9
2
AIR 2012 SC 1357 = 2012(4) SCC 257
3
AIR 2013 SC 912 = 2012 (10) SCC 464
CVNR, J & TA, J
18 CrlA.No.493 of 2012
Dt:28.8.2018
Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of
Rajasthan4 ).