Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Fire arm injury - Circumstantial evidence - Testimony of PW3, PW6 and PW15 - Neither PW3 nor PW6 identify any of accused - They did not depose that three policeman involved in the crime were those who were facing trial - Testimony of PW3 and PW6 is not of much help to prosecution case - As regarding testimony of PW15,..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Fire arm injury - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased died from a .12 bore gunshot, which could not be ascribed to rifles issued to accused - There is no recovery of .12 bore gun from any of accused - After the incident police arrived at the place and took the injured to hospital - According to prosecution accused were..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - No specific overt act attributed to A-2 and A-3 or their joining in attack by A-1 on deceased - Injuries were caused by a Bhujali which was seized from A-1 - Medical evidence does not corroborates eye witness testimonies of PW1 to 4 - Nothing on recorded to show that A-2 and A-3 threw chilly powder and hot oil on..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34 -- Murder - Participation and role of A-1 in crime is shown as per evidence on record - Fatal injuries caused to deceased by weapon recovered from A-1 - Testimonies of eye witnesses corroborated by medical evidence - Case against A-1 is proved - A-1 rightly convicted...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 449, 34 -- Murder - Testimony of child witness - PW1/child witness was hiding in his house at the time of incident and he disclosed the incident to milkman after the accused fled - Said milkman was not examined - There is no support or corroboration to testimony of PW1 - Possibility of PW1 being tutored cannot be ruled out - It is..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 449, 34 -- Murder - Non-examination of material witnesses - PW1/child witness was hiding in his house at the time of incident and after the incident he disclosed the same to milkman - Prosecution has not explained why milkman was not examined as a witness - He was very important witness who was first person to whom PW1 disclosed..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 449, 34 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution stated that there were foot marks of shoes/footwear of accused near the house where incident took place - Prosecution took the moulds of foot marks as deposed by PW6 - Footwear/shoes of both the accused were taken into custody in the presence of PW6 - But the shoes of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Dead body of deceased recovered after 2 days when deceased was allegedly seen alive in company of accused - Deceased was found dead in his own house, where accused did not reside and there was no evidence as to when accused left the house and that no one else could have entered..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of Khanjar (knife) - Recovery was denied by accused and there was no serologist report to connect it with the crime - Moreover, High Court on strength of circumstances appearing in the evidence, doubted date of arrest and upon consideration of circumstances, accepted possibility of arrest..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 -- Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Extra judicial confession - No evidence to demonstrate that accused had any prior relations with PW3 and therefore made confession to him - Accused denied making any such confession - Conviction cannot be made on such weak type of evidence - Accused rightly acquitted...........
