Category: Murder

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder of wife – The appeal raises questions about the admissibility of evidence, particularly the statement of a witness recorded under Section 299 CrPC and a confessional note allegedly written by the appellant – The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in admitting the statement of the complainant and questioned the authenticity of the confessional note and the handwriting expert’s report – The State contended that the chain of incriminating circumstances was complete and pointed exclusively towards the appellant’s guilt, emphasizing the reliability of the confessional note and the absence of the appellant post-crime – The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of incriminating evidence, including motive, last seen together, medical evidence, confessional note, and the appellant’s abscondence – The Court relied on provisions of Section 299 CrPC and Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming the admissibility of the witness’s statement recorded in the appellant’s absence – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, concluding that the appellant was guilty of the murder of his wife and should surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence – If he fails to surrender, the trial court is directed to take steps to apprehend him.

2024 INSC 385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKHPAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and IPC – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Modification of Sentence – Court meticulously examined the circumstantial evidence, confirming the appellant’s guilt and finding no plausible explanation for the events from the appellant – The Court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence pointing to the appellant’s guilt – The Court upheld the conviction for murder, house-trespass, and attempted suicide, maintaining the modified sentence of life imprisonment for 30 years without remission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAVAS @ MULANAVAS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 114 – Murder with knife blows – Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence – An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESHJI AMARSING THAKOR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S 8 r/w S 27 – Murder – that part of the confession which led to the recovery of the dead body of the victim would become admissible, apart from other articles of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused has been identified by several witnesses independently – – Conviction and sentence upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIJU KURIAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 64…

(IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 300 Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder – Four requirements must be satisfied to invoke this exception, viz. (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMCHAND — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.