Must have:
End of Content.
End of Content.
The present case is an appeal against the conviction of a trial court for an offense under section 302 IPC. The complainant was not present for deposition (for trial), but was examined on oath in proceedings under section 299 Cr.P.C. Since the complainant could not be located, their sworn deposition was read in evidence as per section 299 Cr.P.C. The trial court also treated the confession note as an admission. However, the High Court rejected the appeal by holding the confession note as proof of the appellant’s culpability.
The appellant side argued that section 299 Cr.P.C refers to the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It seems the IO attempted all possibilities to locate the accused, but the appellant/accused was absconded. After the proclamation and attachment proceedings, the IO filed the charge sheet under section 299 Cr.P.C. Proceedings under section 299 Cr.P.C was not questioned before any court of law. The trial judge recorded the statement of the complainant under section 299 Cr.P.C.
As per section 299 Cr.P.C if a deposition was taken in the absence of the accused and the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence, the same may be used against the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on the following judgments for section 299 Cr.P.C read with section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complainant has provided a detailed account of the crime and has no motive to falsely implicate the accused for murder. Homicidal death is not in dispute. The statement of the complainant provides a complete chain of circumstances to establish the guilt.
As per section 299 Cr.P.C r/w 33 IEA with a combined reading of Apex court judgments, the statement recorded is fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence.
Twist the Throttle: Legal Wrangles in Motorcycle Touring _ An Article written by Thiru. Ravindran Raghunathan, Chennai, Tamilnadu.
Appeal pertains to a challenge against the confirmation of conviction under the NDPS Act by the Hon’ble High Court. The case was based on secret information and a secret informer. The appellant was charged, tried, and convicted, and their appeal was rejected by the High Court. During the search and seizure procedure, an independent panch witness was associated because the serving panch witness was employed in the Income Tax department. It should be noted that Section 43 of the NDPS Act only applies when the search and seizure is conducted from a public place. As the polythene bag was held by the appellant, there was no requirement to act under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The CRCL report is admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC. Any statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, as per Tofan Singh, a confessional statement is not admissible as evidence. Also, the first-time identification of a witness is doubtful and not corroborated by any independent evidence. Hence, Appeal by A1 is dismissed and his conviction confirmed, Appeal by A2 is allowed and his conviction is quashed.
Challenge against Conviction for Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder. I am writing to bring your attention to certain aspects that need to be considered while challenging the confirmation of conviction of life sentence for culpable homicide amounting to murder.
The following are some observations and suggestions that I hope will assist in your cases:
Regarding the factual aspect, it is important to note that the confirmation of conviction can be challenged under section 141 IPC of the law. This section states that an unlawful assembly must consist of five or more persons. But in this case only four members hence unlawful assembly does not attract.
However, there are contradictions and omissions that need to be addressed. For instance, under section 161 crpc, the police can record witness statements. These statements can be used under section 162 crpc. It is important to understand what constitutes a contradiction and omission and how to contradict a statement recorded under section 161 crpc using section 145 IEA. An example is provided to illustrate this practice.
Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the practice of contradicting the previous statement made by a witness. Additionally, under section 155 IEA, it is possible to impeach the credit of the witness.
When analyzing the evidence, it is important to note the significant omission of the witness not to state that he saw the accused running with a sharp weapon in his hand in the flash of the headlight. This omission amounts to a contradiction. There are also many material omissions that affect the reliability of the witness. Furthermore, the last seen theory will not be of any assistance for the prosecution, as the deceased was not only seen with the accused but also with other persons.
Accused acquitted.
A challenge has been made against the dismissal of a prayer for quashing the history sheet that was opened against the appellant. This history sheet contains the personal details of the appellant’s family members including a minor. However, it has been observed that the amending Standing order does not state that minor relatives should be recorded in the history sheet. Additionally, it has been found that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has not been followed. As a result, the commissioner of police has been given directions to periodically audit and delete the names prescribed in the history sheet. The apex court has also exercised its suo motu powers to expand the aforesaid directions to all the States and Union Territories.
A case involving an appeal against conviction under sections 376(2)(g) and 506 (1) IPC, for gang rape. The case involved an investigation that led to a trial and conviction, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. However, during the trial, the main witnesses, including the prosecutrix, turned hostile in cross-examination. Apex court has observed that the evidence of a prosecution witness could not be rejected entirely based on the fact that the prosecution treated them as hostile and cross-examined them. The long gap between the chief and cross-examination led to speculation that the witnesses may have been won over. Hence conviction confirmed.
A challenge has been made against the judgment of the Honorable High Court, which confirmed the Trial Court’s decision regarding the conviction and sentence for the murders of Kaptan Singh and Kalyan Singh. Although the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge of murdering Kalyan Singh, they were convicted for the murder of Kaptan Singh. The accused’s prayer for remission is not being considered. Their cross-examination did not reveal any useful information and trivial contradictions were not accepted. Hence conviction upheld.
The case involves the conviction of an accused individual under sections 302 & 307 IPC after the filing of closure reports by two Investigating Officers thereafter the accused was arrested and charged with the offense. Later on during the trial led to the filing of an application under section 319 crpc, which allowed an additional accused to be added and a fresh charge under section 34 IPC to be framed.
During the trial, the appellant was convicted, while the additional accused was acquitted. However, a complainant and convicted accused have filed appeals before the Hon’ble High Court, which ultimately dismissed both appeals.
The evidence and submissions were carefully considered by the Apex court, and it was determined that the through accused had climbed into the chaubara, which had no gate, using a ladder and caused fatal injuries to the deceased, who was sleeping in the open space, there was no need to take risks to expose the accused themselves to other family members who became witnesses later.
Furthermore, the conduct of Sharan Kaur P.W.5 was deemed doubtful, and also both prosecution witnesses were found to be wholly unreliable. Since, the motive for the crime was also found to be weak, and the weapon used for the crime was not recovered. As a result, the appellant was acquitted.
The appellant was suspected of believing that the deceased had an illicit relationship with his wife and hence appellant killed the deceased. An FIR was registered, and there was an extra-judicial confession. During the trial and after the questioning under section 313 cr.p.c accused has presented and examined one defense witness on his side to disprove the extra-judicial confession.
The conviction was made based on the evidence and submissions presented. The homicidal death was not disputed, and the motive for the incident was related to the appellant’s doubt about the illicit relationship. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant purchased the weapon used in the crime. Furthermore, there was no independent corroboration of the informant’s testimony, and the testimony of adjacent seat persons was doubtful. Also, the conduct of the appellant’s brother, who did not take the deceased to the hospital, was questionable. Finally, the defense witness successfully discredited the extra-judicial confession and obtained acquittal.
There is a challenge against a conviction made under section 302 IPC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The prosecution’s case involves the accused inflicting stab wounds during an altercation to his wife (who is the deceased). The investigation has been completed, the charges have been framed, and the trial has taken place, after section. 313 (b) crpc questioning the Trial court convicted the accused. Analysing the same the Hon’ble Supreme court has held the following:
The initial burden of proof is on the prosecution, although the accused may have knowledge of any facts [see: section 101 Ill. (a) & section 106 IEA].
In criminal cases, it is important to understand how to apply section 106 IEA. The accused does not need to seek shelter under section 106 crpc unless the prosecution discharges the onus and throws the burden on the accused.
These principles of section 106 IEA should be applied in every cases while dealing burden of proof.
The discovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be considered as one of the circumstances.
Conduct is one of the circumstances and cannot be used as grounds to convict the accused.
It is the Public Prosecutor’s duty to cross-examine a hostile witness,
Even if few contradictions have been brought on record, and they were not proved through the Investigation Officer. The Apex Court reasoning is that Public Prosecutors should not be appointed through political considerations.
Proving contradictions through the IO is not enough, but it is necessary to prove that the witness is lying by resiling from the police statement. Mere suggestions have no evidentiary value. The court must ensure the contradictions are brought on the record if the Public Prosecutor is not skilled.
The question of whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC arises.
The appellant’s counsel tried to bring the death within the sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation.
The application of Section 300 “Exception.4” – Explanation is considered in the present case.
The High Court committed an error by confirming the conviction of the Trial court.
The appellant is appealing against the quashing of a summoning order issued by an Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant learned about his wife’s previous marriage was not annulled and hence has filed a complaint. Upon preliminary evidence, the Magistrate issued a process against the wife. The wife filed a revision petition, and the Sessions Court set aside sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court, but it was dismissed. Before the Apex court it was argued that the accused (wife) had presented a fake photocopy of a divorce decree. The accused became pregnant and later revealed to the appellant that the divorce decree was fake. The appellant argues that setting aside the summoning order under sections 420 and 120B IPC is not legally sustainable. The appeal has been allowed by setting aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court.
Monthly Digest April’2024: Criminal Case laws updates. Only platform for criminal case laws and updates.
The appellant had appealed against the High Court’s judgment that confirmed the conviction under section 302 IPC. The case’s background and trial led to the appellant’s conviction under section 302 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a limited notice regarding the reduction of the sentence. Upon examining the statement of P.W-2, it became clear that the appellant had no intention of hurting the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries due to a fall on the ground. The accused was aware that the injuries inflicted on the deceased could cause death. However, the doctor did not state that the single injury caused death in the usual course of nature. As a result, the sentence was reduced, and the appellant was released as they had already undergone the incarceration period.
An appeal was made against the quashing of an FIR (First Information Report) for the offence under PC Act. The allegation was of demand for a bribe. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR, stating that there was no direct evidence for the demand of a bribe. However, the fact is that the police inspector assured that they would file a charge sheet for money. The Hon’ble High Court did not consider this fact and entered into an inquiry which is unwarranted at this stage, holding that there is no direct evidence for demand for bribe. The High Court did not take into account that the trial is not based on the very same evidence. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the FIR proceedings stand.
Appeal against the conviction being confirmed by the High Court for murder case-Conclusion of trial and conviction-Appeal dismissed in the High court-No premeditation reveal from the testimony of witnesses-Accused did not take any undue advantage or acted cruel or unusual manner.
Appeal against conviction under section 302 IPC – Killing husband by strangulation resulted in section 302 IPC – Registration of FIR – Appellant’s Side Submission – Respondent’s Side Submission – Confession Statement given to the VAO – Post-mortem Report – Conclusion And Order of this Court – Party.
Prayer – Crux of the case – Trial court’s order – Petitioner’s Side Submission -Respondent’s Side Submission – Criminal Revision Case – Criminal Original Petition – Observation of this Court – Section 44 PMLA is exception to section 190 Cr.P.C – Since there is no committal proceedings and hence section 202 (2) Cr.P.C does not arise – Procedure: Since there is no committal proceedings and hence section 202 (2) Cr.P.C does not arise.
Weekly Digest (case laws) no.4 – April ’2024.
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder. The trial court acquitted a1, a2, and a3 but convicted a4, a5, and a6. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal of a1, a2, and a3 and confirmed the conviction of the other accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed its previous judgments and explained the four principles to reverse the acquittal. Findings are necessary to reverse the acquittal. The Hon’ble High Court did not follow the settled principles in reversing the acquittal.
It is important to note that though many were present except the deceased, none other received a single injury in the incident. PW-1, who witnessed the incident, hid in the bushes. After the incident was over, PW-1 reached his home and informed the incident to other persons and to the police. In natural course, witnesses were bound to inform the incident to the police, and their statements would have mandatorily been entered in the daily dairy, which was not brought on record in this case, creating doubt.
PW-1, who was an eye-witness to the incident, is totally contradicted by P.W-6. It is clear that the complainant party created eye-witnesses to the incident and suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence.
Motive is a double-edged weapon. The requirement under the law to prove a disclosure statement is explained. A confession statement is nothing but a memorandum reduced in writing during interrogation, which is inadmissible except for any discovery. The Investigating Officer (IO) must narrate the conversation of the interrogation in the witness box as per Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Judgments on proving disclosure statements are also examined.
Mere exhibiting the memorandum prepared by the IO is not proof of its contents. Since the IO did not give any description about the conversation while recording the disclosure statements, those statements cannot be read in evidence.
Disclaimer:
Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.
For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.
© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES
Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.
