Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 364, 379, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - PW11 identified all three accused in Court, who came at the time when he was washing his car along with deceased and he had last seen all of them sitting in Van on that day - Testimony of PW11 remains intact even during..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Interested witnesses - Motive of crime is clear as on previous day of occurrence also, parties met at police station regarding some issue - Evidence of ocular witnesses narrates guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and corroborates with medical evidence - Testimonies of interested witnesses provided clear picture of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Evidence of eye witness/PW3 - PW3 narrated incident that deceased was attacked by accused explaining role played by each of accused - Evidence of PW3 also credible and corroborated with medical evidence - Evidence of PW3 cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that DW1 stated that on the date of incident PW3 was..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Complainant not witnessed the occurrence - He believed whatever eye witness PW2 informed him - However, conduct and statements of PW2/eye witness do not inspire confidence - PW3 another eye witness, wife of deceased though stated to be in shock and not in consciousness for about a month - But no medical evidence produced..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 -- Murder - Death whether due to poisoning or strangulation - Non-preservation of viscera - Fatal to prosecution case - Statement of doctor that viscera was not preserved as there is no presence of poison - Not sufficient in the peculiar circumstances of the case particularly when independent panch..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 4, 25, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 -- Murder - Dying declaration - Deceased gave statement to police, but said statement is not part of prosecution evidence - Names of A-2 and A-3 not stated in said statement - PW2 in supplementary statement stated names of A-2 and A-3, but he has not..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 4, 25 -- Murder - PW2 stated that injuries sustained by him was given by sharp weapon - A-1 caught red handed with chopper which is corroborated with evidence of PW2, PW1, panch witness of arrest, seizure of weapons and clothes and also in terms of expert evidence - Cause of death was..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 34 -- Attempt to murder - A-5 and A-6 named in FIR as well in alleged oral declaration of deceased - Even recovery of weapons supports case and statements of PWs pointing guilt of these accused - Evidence of doctor and injuries sustained by deceased clearly establish guilt of A-5 and A-6 - Merely not attributing overt act to these..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325, 34 -- Offence u/ss 325, 34 IPC - Incident occurred in 1988 - One injured expired - Injured were duly compensated with amount of fine of Rs.50,000/- - Quantum of fine awarded in 1988 or so appears to be just and reasonable - View of High Court that accused have already undergone some reasonable length of jail sentence which is..........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 386(a), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 34 -- Retrial - Appeal against acquittal - Murder and robbery - Omission to frame charge u/s 34 IPC, in spite of framing issue of common intention by trial Court - Materially affected trial which calls for retrial - High Court rightly exercised discretion u/s 386(a) Cr.P.C. directing..........
