Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 228, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 186, 353, 307, 482, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 27 -- Framing of charge - Offence u/ss 186, 353, 307, 482, 34 IPC and S.27 Arms Act - As prosecution has failed to record statement of any police official that after surrender and arrest of petitioner in Court, he was identified by them as the person..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325, 34 -- Offence u/ss 325, 34 IPC - Material contradictions and inconsistencies in statements of PWs with regard to alleged beatings given to complainant by accused - No explanation given by PWs as to why at first instance complainant who allegedly suffered grievous injury on his ear, was not taken to hospital - Even no explanation given..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25(c) -- Murder - Gunshot injury - Rifle was recovered from house of A-1 as per his disclosure statement and a double barrel gun was also recovered from house of A-2 - However, post mortem report does not state as to whether those gun wounds were caused by rifle or by gun - In the absence of definite..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25(c) -- Murder - Source of light at the spot - Identification of accused - Incident occurred in agricultural field of complainant where it was dark - Panchnama of scene of occurrence shows no indication of electric light at the spot - Case of prosecution is that accused and six other co-accused..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 34, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25(c) -- Murder - Gunshot injury - Recovery witnesses not supported the prosecution case - There was darkness at the time at place of occurrence making it difficult for witness to identify assailants - Evidence of eye witnesses contradictory to each other as to firing of fatal blow - Guilt of accused..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363, 366, 368, 376, 506, 34 -- Kidnapping and rape - Age determination - Radiological examination - Margin of error is two years on either side - Benefit of age determination by ossification test goes to accused...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363, 366, 368, 376, 506, 34 -- Kidnapping and rape - Determination of age of prosecutrix - Bone age of prosecutrix was between 14.5 to 16.5 years - Margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side - Since Court can add 2 years to age of prosecutrix, it would not be proper to assume and presume that..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363, 366, 368, 376, 506, 34 -- Kidnapping and rape - Prosecutrix was not minor on the date of incident - She had voluntarily gone with accused as she never raised an alarm or tried to run away from place where she was allegedly kept by accused - Not only driver of vehicle in which accused allegedly taken away prosecutrix had identified her..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34, 307, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) - - Murder - Dispute as to identity of A-2 - Contradiction in the case of prosecution and sentence adduced in Court as to who fired gun shots - Recovery of weapons from accused is also not proved by..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 34 -- Attempt to murder - Injured sustained two injuries - One injury is on scalp of injured which is simple in nature and other injury is on his right forearm which is grievous in nature - Both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance - Some improvements were made by injured regarding injuries sustained by him - Trial..........
