Judgments - Acquittal
BAIJNATH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M P
(38) A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to Full Judgment
KALA @ CHANDRAKALA Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The appellant is acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt. Full Judgment
MANOJ V/s UOI & ORS.
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYRAJBHAI PUNJABHAI VARU - Murder
10) The courts below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross- examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The court has to examine a dying Full Judgment
R.RACHAIAH Vs. HOME SECRETARY, BANGALORE
The bare reading of Section 216 reveals that though it is permissible for any Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, certain safeguards, looking into the interest of the accused person who is charged with the additional charge or with the alteration of the additional charge, are also provided specifically under sub-sections (3) and 4 of Section 216 of the Code. Sub-section(3), in no Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR.
NOORAHAMMAD AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE THR. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. YUSUF @ ASIF & ORS.
It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. Same has not been done by the High Court. As such without commenting on the merits of the case we find the judgment and order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Full Judgment
KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI
it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HEMANT KAWADU CHAURIWAL ETC
It is a settled law that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction and it does not require any corroboration. But it is equally true that dying declaration goes against the cardinal principle of law that 'evidence must be direct'. Thus, dying declaration must be judged and appreciated in light of the surrounding circumstances Full Judgment
MANGU Vs. DHARMENDRA & ANR.
BALU @ BAL SUBRAMANIAM & ANR. Vs. STATE (U.T. OF PONDICHERRY)
To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime was actually committed by Full Judgment
RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.
It is a settled law that when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the following tests to be clearly established: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent Full Judgment
N.SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.
The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no Full Judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. F.NATARAJ
In the present case, the gaps in the evidences of the prosecutrix and the medical officer make it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took place. It would be erroneous to rely upon such discrepant testimonies and convict the accused. It can thus be stated with certitude that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, in absence of any corroboration by the medical evidence, is not of such quality which can be Full Judgment
INTERNL.ADV.RES.CEN.FOR P.M.& N.M.& ORS. Vs. NIMRA CERGLASS (P) LTD.& ANR.
The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. The High Court being superior court of the State should refrain from analyzing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MUNNA @ SHAMBHOO NATH
In view of the evidence on record and the rationale in the aforementioned cases, we are of a considered view that the prosecution has totally failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, it can be held that the girl was more than 16 years of age and she was competent to give her consent Full Judgment
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHAND BASHA
The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen together’ theory, which resulted into the death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the ‘last seen together’ theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not, may Full Judgment
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded Full Judgment