Category: I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 – Explosive Substance Act, 1908 – Sections 4 and 5 – Murder – Accused with 11 persons attacked with country made bombs as also Laathis and tabbal – Deceased received multiple injuries and eventually succumbed while receiving the treatment he was died – Deceased was a history-sheeter and had scores of criminal cases pending against him or cases in which he was involved – Simply because the deceased had a chequered past which constituted several run-ins with the law, Courts cannot give benefit thereof, particularly when such claims are bald assertions, to those accused of committing such a person’s murder – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Accused persons had assembled in the morning and surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with deadly weapons is sufficient indication to infer that they had surrounded (gheraoed) in a pre-planned manner with a pre-determined mind – the nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAKTU GORAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Circumstantial evidence, it’s essential to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused’s guilt and rule out alternative explanations – Sustaining a conviction based on incomplete evidence is deemed unsafe – Additionally, the legal presumption favors the accused, and in cases of doubt, the benefit goes to the accused, not the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. SREENIVASA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 859…

It can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted – There are no criminal antecedents of accused-appellant that have been brought on record – Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever – Sentence reduced to 3 years from 5 years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

Held, in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1, registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence — Appeal allowed and direction given to concerned respondents to proceed further with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Bela M. Trivedi & Dipankar Datta, JJ. SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020) Decided on: 08.08.2023 Sindhu Janak Nagargoje – Appellant(s) Versus The State of…

You missed