Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961
However, in
case of "K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra"
Dharma vs Nirmal Singh & Bittu & Anr on 5 February, 1996
In
this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of "Dharma Vs Nirmal Singh Bittu and
Another" [AIR 1996 SC 1136] may be referred in
which it is held that a Sarpanch being a man of
authority it was nothing unnatural in the accused
approaching him and apprising him as to what he had
done. In the light of this judgment, it was natural for the
appellant to confess before his own brother Prakash
Yadav (PW-1).
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Narayan Singh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 1985
In the case of "Narayan Singh and
others Vs State of M.P." [AIR 1985 SC 1678], it is
held that it is not open to any court to start with a
presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak
type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the
circumstances, the time when the confession was made
and the credibility of the witnesses who spoke to such a
confession. In the present case, confession was made by
the appellant before his real brother and soon after
such confession witnesses Shivraj (PW-2) and Dinesh
(PW-3) have accepted that complainant Prakash Yadav
(PW-1) told about the confession made by the appellant
10 Criminal Appeal No.839/2004
and the appellant did not discard his confession and
thereafter complainant Prakash Yadav (PW-1) had
lodged FIR Ex.P-1 on the basis of that extra-judicial
confession. Under these circumstances, where the
extra-judicial confession is a substantive piece of
evidence, conviction could be recorded on the basis of
that evidence only. However, it is proved beyond doubt
that the appellant left with his father for fetching
Mahua in the noon on 19.04.2004. He did not come
back to his house in the night due to guilty conscious
and on 20.04.2004 he was found near the dead body of
his own father and he confessed to his brother Prakash
Yadav (PW-1) about the incident. Under these
circumstances, the chain of circumstantial evidence is
complete and the trial court has rightly found that it
was the appellant who pelted stone upon his father i.e.
the deceased Vikram Singh causing his death.
(14) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the case of the appellant falls within the purview of
Section 304 of IPC because the appellant never
intended to kill his own father and when due to a small
discussion relating to appropriateness of a stone which
was to be taken to home, the deceased Vikram Singh
gave a blow of a stick to the appellant then he lost his
temper and pelted stones upon the deceased Vikram
Singh, however, the remaining injuries were simple in
nature whereas only a femur was found broken and
injury caused on forehead was fatal in nature.
According to him, the case falls within the purview of
Exception (1) of Section 300 of IPC. However, if facts of
this case are examined then it cannot be said that the
deceased Vikram Singh gave a powerful blow of the
11 Criminal Appeal No.839/2004
stick to the appellant when the discussion took place for
picking up for a particular stone. Hence, the reaction of
the appellant may not fall within the purview of sudden
or grave provocation. If the appellant was annoyed with
the behaviour of his father then no grave provocation
was given to the appellant by his father.
1