Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.T. Palanisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2008
In the case of K. T. Palanisamy vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported as 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 870, even the dead body had
not been recovered at all and the factum of death of the deceased itself was
not proved. In view thereof, it was observed that mere evidence of last seen
together would not be sufficient to convict the accused when even the
factum of death or homicide is not proved. So, this judgment is also
completely distinguishable on facts.
Smt. Dhanwant Kaur vs Union Territory Chandigarh ... on 28 January, 1992
Next reliance was placed on the case
of Dhanwant Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported as
2007 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 864. In that case, the accused was last seen in
Crl. Appeal No. 16-DB of 2000 14
the company of deceased on 11.10.1994, whereas the dead body was
recovered on 23.10.1994 i.e. after 12 days. Obviously, the said evidence of
last seen together 12 days before the recovery of dead body could not be
sufficient to convict the accused.
Sunny Kapoor vs State (Ut Of Chandigarh) on 5 May, 2006
Reliance has also been placed on Sunny
Kapoor vs. State (UT of Chandigarh), reported as 2006 (3) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 48. In that case, the deceased disappeared on 18.09.1999 and
the dead body was recovered on 20.09.1999 i.e. after two days. In these
circumstances, evidence of last seen together was held to be insufficient to
convict the accused. It is thus apparent that all these judgments cited by
learned counsel for the appellants are completely distinguishable.
State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007
Lastly,
reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported as
2007 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 458. In that case, there was gap of 8 ½ hours
when the deceased was seen alive with the accused. It was observed that
this circumstance, even if proved, cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt on the
accused. In the instant case, however, there was gap of 4 ½ hours only and
there are also other circumstances including motive, place of recovery of
dead body, prompt FIR and medical evidence, besides the evidence of last
seen together. So, this judgment also does not come to the rescue of the
appellants in the instant case. On the other hand, in the instant case, the
chain of circumstances proved on record is complete and is sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.