Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Rabin Mallick vs State Of West Bengal on 16 March, 2011 cites

State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007

Let us examine whether this can be considered as the circumstance to show that immediately thereafter the victim came to be murdered. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 162 in support of his submission that duration of time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime, held, would be a material consideration. It is, therefore, submitted that such evidence would be taken into account where the prosecution establishes that the said time gap was so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the appellant- accused, has drawn our attention to the fact that Dr. Abhijit Ghosal, P.W. 13, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Fatik, has stated as regards the time of death that the body was decomposed and as such in his opinion, the death was caused about 2/3 days before 14.09.07. It is submitted that it is 12 the prosecution's case that the victim has been murdered on 11.09.07, then there was a gap of more than 24 hours as according to the opinion of the Medical Officer death was caused about 2/3 days before 14.09.07 and probably the victim has been murdered on 12.09.07 and not on 11.09.07 which is the prosecution's case and, therefore, even if the circumstance of 'last seen' together is taken to have been established against the appellant- accused, it cannot be stated that this will lead to the conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the murder. We do not find this to be a reason not to consider the circumstance of 'last seen' together against the appellant-accused. There has been no cross-examination of the Medical Officer to bring on record that the victim died on 12.09.07 or thereafter. This being the opinion of the Medical Officer based on the fact that the dead body was decomposed, does not, in our view, fix the exact time of death, but it goes to show that the victim had died much before, i.e., about 2/3 days before 14.09.07 when the post-mortem was performed on his dead body.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 2526 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 1952

Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, submitted that this part of the prosecution's case that the appellant-accused made an extra judicial confession to Ashoke Karmakar, P.W. 1, and his associates cannot be accepted for the reason that it is not voluntary. It is submitted that the evidence of these witnesses reveal that the appellant- accused was accosted by them at about 17.30 hrs., but was taken to the Police Station after more than 2 hrs. which can be gathered from the fact that 14 the FIR in the case came to be registered on 12.09.07 at 19.30 hrs. which goes to show that all these witnesses tried to extract the confession from the appellant-accused, otherwise, there was no reason for them to take more than 2 hrs. to reach Police Station. This shows that the appellant-accused was threatened, tortured by wrongfully confining him. So, this piece of evidence in the form of extra judicial confession should not be given any weightage. Further, it is submitted that extra judicial confession or for that reason confession of a co-accused person is not evidence as has been held in the case of Kashmira Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court has committed an error in relying on such evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 503 - V Bose - Full Document
1   2 Next