Category: Murder

Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not – State appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. RAMJI LAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 and 27 – Murder – Re-appreciation of evidence – evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that PW allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal…

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 149 – Murder – Injuries on vital parts – From the evidence of doctor, it can be gathered that the injuries on the vital parts like right lung and liver which resulted into bleeding and shock were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary cause of nature – Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause death – It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KUMAR — Appellant Vs. AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Murder by Gunshot – Fired fatal shot from roof of house – Evidence – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house – Prosecution stands proved

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) – Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Murder – HELD In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of eye witnesses, it can be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction – Conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons – Evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted – His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed