Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 -- Murder - Burden of proof - If accused does not throw any light upon facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, such failure on part of accused may be used against accused as it may provide an additional link in chain of circumstances required to be proved against him...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 -- Murder - Burden of proof - When last seen theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as time when deceased was last seen with accused, and recovery of corpse being in very close proximity of time, accused does owe explanation u/s 106 of Evidence Act with regard to circumstances under..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 4, 25 -- Murder - Injured witness/PW1 stated that accused `S' had opened fire - Firearm was recovered from accused `S' and his name appeared in statement given by PW1 - Case against accused `S' proved - Accused rightly convicted...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 4, 25 -- Murder - Injured witness/PW1 has not given any description of persons who were riding on motorcycle of accused `S' - No TIP was got conducted for the same - Case against other accused not proved - Accused acquitted...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Sole testimony of PW3 - Inordinate delay in recording of evidence of witnesses not explained by I.O - PW1 and PW5 have not supported prosecution case - PW3 is not wholly reliable - Conviction on sole testimony of PW3, without there being any corroboration to his evidence not justified - Benefit of doubt thus, given to..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 364, 365, 380, 395, 34 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - There is gap of five days from the date on which deceased was taken away by accused and dead body was recovered - However, prosecution failed to prove that dead body was recovered at the instance of A-3 - Last seen evidence not proved...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 364, 365, 380, 395, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 -- Murder - Disclosure statement - Recovery of dead body of deceased - No confessional statement of A-3 was recorded u/s 27 of the Act with regard to recovery of dead body - Prosecution thus, failed to prove the circumstance that dead body of deceased was recovered at the instance..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 364, 365, 380, 395, 34, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 -- Murder - Disclosure statement - Recovery of spade at the instance of A-1 - Recovery effected from a place which was already known and not exclusively within knowledge of A-1 - Recovery is not reliable - Accused acquitted...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 201, 34 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Identification of rings worn by deceased - Naib Tehsildar has stated that at the time of recovery of dead body, she noticed that rings in the hand of deceased - However, neither father nor brother of deceased stated that seized rings belonged to deceased and they had seen the rings in the..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 201, 34 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen together - There is considerable time gap between last seen alive of deceased with accused and time when dead body of deceased was recovered which is about after 10 days - It cannot be held that accused are perpetrator/author of offence in absence of corroboration - Last seen..........
