Judgments - Conviction
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
TEJRAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
The decision of this appeal will rest on the answers to the following two questions : (i) Reliability of DD Exhibit 45 recorded by PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari PW 4 made by deceased Savita; (ii) Admissibility and reliability of DDs made by Prabhabai recorded by SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut Exhibit 41) and PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (Exhibit 43). However, the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the DD and that the statement was faithfully recorded and was otherwise reliable. Full Judgment
RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.
In light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Full Judgment
BADRU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
The Doctrine of parity cannot replace the substantive evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses mentioned above, who have been believed concurrently by the courts below. The evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses is clear - this is not a case of sudden provocation and the mere absence of motive does not bring home the lesser charge. The appeal Full Judgment
SANJEEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
It is settled principle of law that, to establish commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place of incident at the time of commission of Full Judgment
BHAVANBHAI BHAYABHAI PANELLA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
The only question which survives for consideration is the sentence to be awarded- Having regard to the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to RI for ten years. However, sentence of fine and compensation as also default sentence and direction for recovery of the amount payable as compensation are Full Judgment
MAHADEO NARAYAN MORE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGGA SINGH ETC.
MOTILAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
NAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
TUMMALA VENKATESHWAR RAO VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
AKHILESH YADAV VS VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS
The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact. As has been repeatedly indicated by this Court, review of a judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each Full Judgment