Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
In this regard, Shri Mohite has relied on an old decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 : (1947 (48) Cri LJ 533), wherein the Court has drawn a distinction between the term "fact discovered" and object produced. Shri Mohite submits that the proposition laid down in this case, namely, that the two concepts cannot be divested from each other in so far as the discovery of an object is inextricably interlinked to the place where it is discovered from and, therefore, knowledge of one is synonymous with the other. In our considered view, the proposition would not be of much assistance to Shri Mohite for the reason that the knowledge gained by the police from Dileep Salavkar (PW 6) was a vague idea of the fact that the accused had thrown something at a particular place. The knowledge was acted upon and the result was in the negative and, therefore, that knowledge would have no bearing on what happened subsequently. It was pursuant to a statement that the accused led the police to the compound of one Raut and produced the knife-handle from under some leaves because obviously he alone knew the exact spot where it had been thrown and this discovery, therefore, is certainly of assistance to the prosecution. Apart from linking the accused with the knowledge of where the handle of the murder weapon was thrown, what is significant in this case is that the knife used had broken into two parts, the first of which was found at the scene of offence and the second one, which was discovered at the instance of the accused, perfectly fits the blood-stained part that was found at the scene of offence. It is in these circumstances that this discovery to our mind is of extreme importance in establishing the prosecution case.
Chanda Lal And Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 November, 1991
In this context, a reference to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, , would be relevant. In that case, though the facts were slightly different, the Supreme Court was considering the advisability of imposing a jail sentence in a proceeding where a conviction under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded against the accused in respect of an incident that had taken place 20 years earlier. The litigation had gone through a chequered history and the Supreme Court expressed the view that having regard to this circumstance a fine would meet the ends of justice. In the present case, the submission that is canvassed on behalf of the accused is that even though he is an ordinary agriculturist that he and his family are anxious that he should be afforded an opportunity to make a fresh start in life and live as a useful citizen and that apart from a sentence the Court should impose a fine that could be capitalised and used for the benefit and welfare of the mother of the deceased Balaram, Parvatibai (PW 1), and the three young children. For the reasons earlier indicated by us, we have deliberately excluded the widow Babita. We see considerable justification in the plea that has been canvassed on behalf of the accused.
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1