Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rambraksh @ Jalim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2016
8. In view of the facts and evidence as discussed
hereinabove, we find that the last seen together evidence is
well supported with other corroborative evidence. The
allegation is not based only on the last seen together
evidence. The Apex Court in the cases of Rambraksh alias
Jalim Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (2016)12 SCC 251 and
Anjan Kumar Sarma and others Vs. State of Assam
(2017)14 SCC 359 held that conviction cannot be based on
the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last
seen theory comes into play where time gap, between the
point of time when accused and deceased were seen last
alive and when deceased is found dead, is so small that
11
possibility of any person other than accused being the
perpetrator of crime, becomes impossible. In the facts of the
present case, the prosecution has established that the
deceased was last seen with the present appellant and
thereafter her dead body was found near her house. Thus,
the conviction is not based solely on last seen evidence but
there is corroborative evidence as well and the prosecution
has successfully proved its case beyond any doubt. We do
not find any error in the order of conviction and sentence of
appellant Munna @ Sudekh @ Saddam.
Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors on 20 October, 2016
11. The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case
of Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and others (2016)16 SCC
418 that the court will not interfere with judgment of High
12
Court, unless the same is clearly unreasonable or perverse
or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact that
another view could also have been taken on the evidence on
record, is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal.
1