Judgments - Murder
GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within his sight. The facts do not commend to Full Judgment
KHOKAN GIRI @ MADHAB Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
MUKARRAB ETC Vs. STATE OF U.P.
ANJAN DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
RAMESH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
K.V. PRAKASH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
NATHIYA Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE,VELLORE
YOGESH SINGH Vs. MAHABEER SINGH & ORS
HARBEER SINGH Vs. SHEESHPAL & ORS
KAMTA YADAV & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
JOSE @ PAPPACHAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANR
In Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 745, one of us (Hon. Ghose,J.) while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence ruled that the same has to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should establish a complete unbroken Full Judgment
SADDIK @ LALO GULAM HUSSEIN SHAIKH & ORS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
VIKAS YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ORS. ETC. ETC
SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU Vs. STATE REP.BY DY.COMM.OF POLICE
…For the present, it may be sufficient to state that the gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy created under Section 120-A is a bare agreement to commit an offence. It has been made punishable under Section 120-B. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than a Full Judgment