Category: Acquittal

Kerala Forest Act, 1961 – Section 27 – Illegal possession of sandalwood oil -HELD in holding that the presumption that the seizure of forest produce belonging to the State, automatically can result in a presumption of culpable mental state of the accused- in other words, that seizure of the goods ipso facto meant that the appellant had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin, or that the accused’s inability to account for a transit pass, implied that they procured the goods illegally, thus attracting Section 27 – given that the appellants had furnished a series of documents explaining how they had sourced the oil in question – State’s absence of diligence in producing those materials (which were in its possession) and proving that they were without credibility, cannot result in a conviction – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARATH BOOSHAN AGGARWAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – Sections 107 and 306 – ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KANCHAN SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Abetment of Suicide – Harassment -Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC – High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VELLADURAI — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD Prosecution stands proved against accused-P and accused-S and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-I and accused-K deserve acceptance – Accused-I and accused-K be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Murder – Recovery of weapons – Prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 852…

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 436 – Murder by pouring kerosene in house and around the deceased and children – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant not being injured alone cannot be held as a circumstance to hold one guilty of having set fire to the house – Since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARUBAI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1154…

Dowry death – The essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence. Prosecution failed to establish the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below convicting the appellants under Section 306, IPC merits interference . law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be summarized

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., and Aniruddha Bose, J. ) Criminal…

High Court misdirected itself in finding support for conviction on such unclinching evidence – The innocence of the appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused-Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – As the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused by virtue of Section 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

You missed