common  intention

Sec. 302, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. -Circumstantial Evidence not proved – Sec.27 of Evidence Act recovery at the instance of accused not proved- Abscond not proved- common intention not established – two accused – trial court convicted both accused – Appellant court acquitted Accused No.1 and convicted only Accused No.2 as the wrist watch was collected from his house – Apex court held that theory of theft for committing murder – not the case of Prosecution witnesses as no body complained about theft – it is only case of I.O. -all the gold ornaments are not removed from the body of deceased – so theory of theft is false one- mere left for their native village does not amounts to abscond as admittedly the accused were arrested in their village – mere presence in the morning in a rented house , there is nothing to disclose who killed the deceased in a house after all left for their respective duties – Recovery of wrist watch after 10 days at the instance of accused No.2 is also wrong procedure adopted as the wrist watch was handed over by the mother of the accused No.2 but not from any hidden place – non- examination of mother of accused – hostile of seizer witnesses and another witness who alleged that the accused left for some other village – No chain proved – Acquitted the accused and allowed the appeal = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1010 OF 2004 Durga Burman (Roy) … Appellant (s) Versus State of Sikkim … Respondent (s) = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41798

 Sec. 302, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. -Circumstantial Evidence not proved – Sec.27 of Evidence Act recovery at the instance of accused not proved- Abscond not proved- common intention not established –   two accused – trial court convicted both accused – Appellant court acquitted Accused No.1 and convicted only Accused No.2 as the wrist … Continue reading →