Category: Murder

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.…

(IPC) – Ss 302 & 149 – (CrPC) – S 164 – Murder – Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded – If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of witness and the other material evidence led during trial – Conviction and sentence upheld

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – – whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death – The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased – Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASAD PRADHAN AND ANOTHER @.APPELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed