Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 34 -- Murder - Robbery - Accused along with two co-accused fired on deceased and witnesses and took away their bicycle and cash - It was too much a coincident that accused who was resident of another village could have been identified by witnesses - There was hardly any reason for witnesses to have crossed the way on which accused..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 34 -- Murder - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of ornaments - There is contradiction regarding recovery of silver anklets, which belies version of prosecution that silver anklets were recovered at the instance of accused - Disclosure statement made by accused and statement of PW2 make recovery of gold articles..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 394, 34 -- Murder - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of weapon - Accused `N' had only disclosed the spot where he had allegedly thrown the knife and in pursuance of this disclosure, no recovery has been affected - Disclosure regarding identification of spot where knife was thrown without any recovery is again inadmissible..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363, 366, 376 -- Kidnapping and rape - No eye witness of incident except the prosecutrix herself - Nobody is even seen prosecutrix while accused was taking her away with him - Delay of more than 3 days in lodging of FIR - No report has been lodged even about missing or `Gumshudagi' of prosecutrix - Prosecutrix not only admitted her..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, 504 -- Murder - Common intention - When all the three accused persons separately armed with weapons storm into house of deceased, merely because only one out of them uses the weapon and gives the fatal blow, would not absolve others - Other two accused may not be required to use their weapons but that by itself does not change..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 498A, 34, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3, 4, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 -- Murder - Cruelty - Two dying declarations - Deceased stated before doctor that her mother-i, law and brother-i, law poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire while her husband was not there - Second dying declaration was recorded by..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 394, 34 -- Murder - Accused persons being patients of deceased and familiar to him fired upon deceased which was witnessed by his wife - Wife of deceased fainted on receiving injury by butt of gun after witnessing entering of accused armed with guns and murder of her husband - There is ocular witnesses to actual commission of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 324, 394, 34 -- Murder - Common intention - All three accused had come armed with firearms with common object and intention of committing murder of deceased - For applicability of S.34 it does not matter as to who actually fired the shot - It also does not matter that accused `B' had not fired the shot - Fact that all accused..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, 324, 325, 326, 504, 506 -- Voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt - Accused assaulted injured persons with lathis fitted with farsa - FIR lodged after 2-1/2 days and no explanation given for such delay - I.O not stated in his evidence that injuries sustained by injured were caused by accused persons - Infact injured had received..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 148, 149, 120B -- Murder - Accused was not named in FIR - No test identification parade was held - After expiry of four years of incident, accused was identified in Court by a witness - No specific role assigned to accused - It is neither safe nor proper to convict accused particularly when enmity and election rivalry between both..........
