Judgments - Murder
NAGABHUSHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Girraj Versus Kiranpal and Anr Etc.
V.N. PATIL VERSUS K. NIRANJAN KUMAR & ORS.
Satpal vs. State of Haryana
SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu Versus State of Jharkhand
Kuldeep Choudhary @ Kuldeep Yadav & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - If nature of injuries found on the person of deceased were not grievous in nature and were not sufficient to cause death, oral dying declaration/statement given by him does not fall within the ambit and scope of “dying declaration” envisaged in Section 32(1) of the Act. The Court needs to examine carefully whether injuries on the person are sufficient to cause death and this depends on the factual matrix Full Judgment
RAM VIJAY SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DEVILAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. DAMODARAN VERSUS THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
GAURI SHANKAR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
The State of Odisha Versus Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr.
Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas Versus State of Chhattisgarh
PARDESHIRAM VERSUS STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
EKANT BANSAL VERSUS STATE GNCT OF DELHI
ASHARAM TIWARI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MIHIR GOPE ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Ramcharan Patel Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - (1) Section 302, 120B and Section 201 of IPC : Vikki Bai was not traceable from matrimonial house and hence her father-in-law lodged "Gum Insaan" report in Police Station. Father of Vikki Bai also lodged the report that she is murdered by appellants. Body or remains of Vikki Bai could never be traced. The court below held the appellants as guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Held : Conclusion of guilt must be based on circumstances Full Judgment