Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
39. Prosecution has failed to prove that appellant nos. 1 and
2 took the deceased, committed murder and buried the dead body in
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2018 01:40:56 :::
27 apeal9.17
the graveyard of Visapur. Learned trial Court has not considered the
evidence properly and wrongly recorded it's finding that
circumstances are proved against the appellants. It is pertinent to
note that the circumstances should be proved without any doubt.
Circumstances should be of conclusive nature and should point out
guilt towards the accused and none else. Circumstances are not
proved as per guidelines of Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra. In the present case,
none of the circumstances relied by prosecution are proved against
the appellants. Learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and
201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we proceed to pass the
following order.
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Charandas Swami vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2017
29. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the decision of
Charandas Swami vs. State of Gujarat and another (cited supra). In
the cited decision, material circumstances were proved. One of the
circumstance was in respect of disclosure made by the accused to
show the spot where dead body was thrown and burnt and in
consequence thereof, accused showed the place where dead body
was thrown and burnt. Therefore, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court
that the said statement by the accused is admissible u/s. 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The facts in the cited decision is very much
different and therefore, the cited decision is not applicable to the
case in hand.