Judgments - Conviction
MAQSOOD & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.
STATE THR. INT. OFF., NARCOTICS CON.BUR. Vs. MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC.
BHANUBEN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Full Judgment
RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
ESHWARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DAYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ASHOK & ORS.
In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report it is quite clear that the respondents were present when Tikaram was burning alive. The sequence of narration certainly shows that they were waiting in ambush. It may be that only two of them set Tikaram afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding Tikaram that he would not be allowed to escape. Further, throwing of burning Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ASHOK & ORS.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MADANLAL
JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Insofar as circumstances leading to connecting the appellant with the said murder are concerned, following evidence has come on record: (i) Brother of the deceased i.e. PW-9 had seen the appellant working in the fields which are adjacent to the fields of victim's family where Sunita had gone to collect Barseem. (ii) The appellant was keeping an evil eye on the deceased. (iii) The sickle, weapon used in the murder, Full Judgment
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Dealing with the concept of chance witness, a two-Judge Bench in Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana[8], has observed that:- “We do not understand the expression “chance witnesses”. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates Full Judgment
RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS
The main contention is that when the case of prosecution has been believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three respondents cannot be acquitted. Therefore, the only question before us is whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to Full Judgment
SANJIV KUMAR @ GORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, and we are of the view that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. In each case, facts and circumstances of that case are always required to be taken into consideration. For the purpose of just and proper Full Judgment
D. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
He has admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. The only effort at proving his innocence has been the submission that receipt of the entire sum was on behalf of Accused 1, no part of which was demanded by Accused 2 for his own keeping and consumption. This Court has ratiocinated in significant length and detail on the nature of evidence commonly encountered in trap cases Full Judgment
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM PAL
Only question raised for consideration is whether the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just. Moreover, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence, in absence of perversity or patent legal error, merely because a different view was also possible. We are thus, not inclined to reopen Full Judgment
RAMAKANT MISHRA @ LALU ETC. Vs. STATE OF U.P.
Succinctly stated, it had been held therein that the use of word 'shown' instead of 'proved' in Section 304B indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability. In other words, 'shown' will have to be read up to mean 'proved' but only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thereafter, the word 'deemed' Full Judgment
DHIRENDRA KUMAR @ DHIROO Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND
As far as reliability of evidence on record is concerned, we are of the view that re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in absence of patent illegality or perversity merely because a different view could also be taken. Question whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 has to be decided from Full Judgment