Section 302

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Alteration of conviction under sec302 to sec. 325 IPC = .In a sudden fight, a simple act of throwing stone does not comes under sec. 302 without the prosecution proving the intention and motive on the part of accused who has no previous score with the deceased = .In the course of that altercation appellant No.2 does appear to have hurled a stone towards the deceased which hit and injured him but there is nothing to show that the injury was by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course nor is there anything to show that there was any pre-concert between the appellant-Manoj and his father to kill the deceased. In the absence of any evidence, let alone evidence that is reliable and cogent, to show that appellant No.2 intended to cause death or shared the intention to cause death with his son, it is difficult to sustain his conviction for murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution has not even alleged a motive against appellant No.2. The motive based on illicit relationship between appellant-Manoj and the wife of the deceased, could hardly be attributed to appellant No.2, no matter, the incident started with an altercation in which even he got involved. The sudden fight between the appellants on the one hand and the deceased on the other, escalated into a tragedy for the deceased but the responsibility for the gruesome assault, cannot be shifted from Manoj who used a dangerous weapon like a Sword to fatally injury the deceased. The stone thrown by appellant No.2 may have triggered the incident to its ugly end but beyond that appellant No.2 cannot be attributed the responsibility of murder with or without the assistance of Section 34 of the IPC. Appellant No.2 can at best be held guilty of causing grievous hurt to the deceased punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. = The conviction of appellant No.2 is, however, altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 IPC. Appellant No.2 has been in jail for nearly 3½ years now which sentence should, in our opinion, suf

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40529 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.2597 of 2012) Manoj and Anr. …Appellants Versus State of Karnataka …Respondent J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave arises … Continue reading

Mere Delay in sending FIR not fatal to the prosecution = where the FIR was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the Court then, however improper or objectionable the delay in receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to the accused it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40473 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2004 Sheo Shankar Singh …. Appellant VERSUS State of U.P. ….Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2004 Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu …. Appellant VERSUS State of U.P. ….Respondent J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim … Continue reading

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE = the standard of proof required for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and laid down the golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence which are as follows: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra,(1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807) “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. .These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”= In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established all the circumstances by cogent and acceptable evidence and if we consider all the circumstances it leads to a conclusion that it was the appellants/accused who kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased Kamlesh. We are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly accepted the prosecution case and awarded life sentence which was affirmed by the High Court. We fully concur with the said conclusion. Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 Prakash …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Rajasthan …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.03.2006 … Continue reading

since the deceased suffered acid injury in his tongue, he was incapable of making any statement and, therefore, the alleged statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated to have been recorded by PW-4 cannot be true.- If the deceased was in a position to make a long cry after the acid attack, it can be safely concluded that he would have definitely be in a condition to explain to the police officer the manner in which the occurrence took place.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1709 OF 2009 SRI BHAGWAN ….APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ….RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal by the sole accused is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,105 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com