Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 397, 34 -- Murder - Dead body of deceased discovered on the disclosure statement of accused J & P - Said facts are proved and established by constables - Even, test identification parade and dock identification also proves that accused were seen with deceased - Case against accused J & P is proved beyond reasonable doubt - Accused..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 397, 34 -- Murder - Accused `B' was arrested after one year from the incident - Test identification parade was also conducted after 13 months from the incident - Police officers were not taken to identification parade - Prosecution relies on recovery on key allegedly from accused `B', but this evidence is also disbelieved, as not..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 323, 148, 149 -- Murder, robbery, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, unlawful assembly - From the deposition of eye witnesses, nothing forthcoming that appellants caused any injury on the deceased and/or participated in any manner in commission of the offence - No evidence that appellants instigated other co-accused - Conviction..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 397, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 -- Bail - Offence u/ss 392, 397 IPC - Accused are juveniles and are not stated to be involved in any other case - It is co-accused who was carrying a pistol - Accused have been behind the bars for a substantial period of 1 year - Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time in as not..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 398, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 -- Offence u/ss 392, 398 IPC and S.25 of Arms Act - Disclosure statements - Entire case of prosecution is based on disclosure statements but prosecution has not been able to prove the same - These statements were never put to complainant and eye witness during cross-examination - Story put forward by..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 34 -- Dacoity - As per prosecution, seven named persons had committed dacoity - Five out of them were acquitted - Two persons cannot be convicted u/s 392 IPC r/w S.34 IPC, going by very nature of charge of dacoity...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 397 -- Offence u/ss 392, 397 IPC - All three accused had taken part in committing robbery, but only co-accused had used firearm - Said firearm was seized from possession of co-accused from his disclosure in the presence of witnesses - Offence against co-accused is proved - There was neither any allegation apart from a stray sentence..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120B, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 54, 59 -- Attack on police party - police party was escorting four accused from the Central Jail and they were to be produced in Court - They boarded the train when train reached at Railway Station four young boys entered their compartment and attacked police party in..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120B, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 54, 59, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 10 -- Attack on police party - Test Identification Parade - As per prosecution, apart from police party who were escorting accused in train there were about 50-60 passengers - No independent witness was examined - Out of four young boys..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 392, 397 -- Offence u/ss 392, 397 IPC - Sole eye witness to the alleged crime and his nephew have not supported the case of prosecution - No substantial effort made by police for conducting search of residence of accused in the presence of local witnesses - Complainant and PW8 un-ambiguously refuted that neither passbook nor red cloth was..........
