Judgments - Murder
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
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. Vs. MANINDRA KUMAR
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ASHOK & ORS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SATEESH & OR.
INDRA DALAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
The word 'confession' has no where been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean Full Judgment
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
BIJENDRA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
According to the witnesses these two accused were also armed with country made pistols. The injuries suffered by the deceased are incised wounds and one fire arm injury. However, none of the injuries on the person of the deceased could be attributed to the lathi which was supposedly in the hands of the appellant. Undoubtedly, three injuries on the person Full Judgment
PURUSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE & ANR. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
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
Prashant @ Sheelu Dixit Vs State Of U.P. & Another
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
DASIN BAI @ SHANTI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-This Court has observed in a number of cases, that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declaration especially, since there is consistency between them. In the case of Ravi & Anr. v State of T.N. (2004 (10) SCC 776), it has been held by this Court that if the truthfulness or otherwise of the dying declaration cannot be doubted, the same Full Judgment
PATHUBHA GOVINDJI RATHOD AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
No doubt normally the right of private defence is not available to either of the parties in incidents of group fighting, but that is not a rule without exception.- In the case at hand, we have a special circumstance where the injured person (appellant no. 1) who was given 2cm x 2cm x 1.5cm deep knife blow on his back (scapular region) has retorted by using licensed firearm, and killed one of his rivals in the same incident. Accused/appellant Pathubha Govindji has Full Judgment