Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Delay in arrest of accused despite clear knowledge of whereabouts of accused casts a serious shadow of doubt over prosecution case...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Identification of recovered ornaments - Prosecution examined many witnesses who are alleged to be pledgors of ornaments - Identification procedure was conducted without mixing recovered jewellery with similar or identical ornaments..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of blood stained weapons - Prosecution failed to establish that weapons recovered were used for commission of crime - Medical evidence also indicates that injuries found on the body of deceased persons could not have been..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of blood stained clothes and items - Veracity of recovery is doubtful, as recovery effected 2 days after arrest of accused and recovery of stolen articles from houses of accused which I.O had thoroughly searched previously..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - DIG of police visited the scene of crime shortly after recovery of dead bodies - He inferred that crime may be committed by three persons who were electricians after seeing three tea tumblers and electrical equipments - This..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 449, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Tripple murder case - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Last seen witnesses saw entry and exit of accused from crime scene respectively - Witnesses conveyed this piece of valuable information to complainant right before he filed first information - However, there is..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 148, 149, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Murder - Enmity between two families - Prosecution alleges that six accused shot deceased - However, involvement of only two accused `O' and `R' proved on the basis of eye witnesses - Incident is witnessed by PW1 and PW2 - They did not intervene due to fear - Evidence of eye witnesses..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9 -- Attempt to murder - Non-conducting of Test Identification Parade (TIP) - PW7 suffered a fire arm injury at the hands of accused - He has given detailed sequence of events - Complainant also deposed on similar lines as PW7 - It was complainant who chased and apprehended..........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 148, 149, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Summoning of additional accused - Land dispute - Complainant and his injured brother stated in FIR and in Court that both petitioners were present on the spot - Even, fire arm injury attributed to petitioner corroborated by medical evidence..........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 148, 149, 323, 307, 506, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, 27 -- Bail - Offence u/ss 148, 149, 323, 307, 506, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and Ss.25, 27 Arms Act - Admittedly, it is a case of version and cross-version and petitioner himself is injured - `L' who is accused in..........
