Judgments - Murder
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH @ GAJENDRA
Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done. Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be assessed carefully. 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
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NITIN GUNWANT SHAH
This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said Full Judgment
NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt Full Judgment
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS.
VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
SUNIL KHERGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Smt. Suprabha Tyagi Vs State Of U.P. and 14 Ors
RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.
Ghasi Ram & 2 Others Vs State of U.P.
ATAMBIR SINGH @ CHOTA BABLA Vs STATE OF DELHI
ESHWARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DAYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
STATE OF U.P. Vs. SATVEER & ORS.
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
KAMLA KANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.
It is settled principle that a conviction can well be founded on the testimony of a single witness if the court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars[1]. We are conscious that we are considering an appeal against acquittal and that going by the law laid down by this Court, the Full Judgment