Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Madho Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 September, 2002
15. The theory of last seen--the appellant having gone with the deceased
in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial
evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be
maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his
conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of
proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial
relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The
fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of
Rajasthan."
Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Javed Masood & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2010
Reliance is placed by Mr. Basu upon the decisions of Javed
Masood & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010), 2 C. Cr.
LR. (SC) 44, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2014) 2 C.Cr. LR (SC) 233, Tomaso Bruno & Anr. V. State of U.P.
reported in (2015) 3 C Cr LR (SC) 34 and Machindra v. Sajjan
Galfa Rankhamb reported in (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 381 in support of
his submissions.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Kanhaiyalal Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan . on 26 September, 2016
There was, however, no evidence on record that victim was last
seen together with the appellant on the relevant night and/or just
before her death. Even assuming that P.W.1 saw the appellant on
August 12,2002 at his house and that victim had reported him that
appellant assaulted her as she had asked him for plantation of paddy
but this circumstance by itself does not lead to the irresistible
conclusion that the appellant had killed the victim and thrown the
dead body in the tank. It can not be presumed that the appellant was
responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arises against
him. Save and except P.W.1 nothing was brought on record to show
that there was no cordial relationship in between the appellant and
the victim-wife. Moreover, circumstances of last seen together does
not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was the appellant
who committed the crime. Reference may be made to the decision of
Kanhaiyalal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 4
Supreme Court Cases 715 and the relevant portions of the above
decision are quoted below:-
1