- 28 Sep 66

Accused held guilty for murder for committing murder of deceased.

India - Madras


Laxman Naik VS State of Orissa - 22 Feb 94

(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376 - Conviction under - Appeal. Offence of committing rape and soon after murder of the victim in a forest - Accused is an agnate and paternal uncle of the deceased, a girl of 7 years of age - No eye-witness - Only circumstantial evidence - Death due to asphyxia by throttling - Medical evidence revealing forcible sexual assault just before her death - Accused absconded and could be apprehended only after about 14 months - On the day of occurrence the accused had commanded the deceased to accompany him to the village. Misrepresentation and intentional false statement of the accused as to the whereabouts of the deceased - Dead body recovered from a jungle. One underwear stained with blood belonging to the accused was lying near the dead body - Seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased completely smeared with blood - Serious bleeding injury in her. private part - Circumstances established are of exclusive nature consistent only with the hy...

India - Crimes


Naresh Mandal VS State Of Bihar - 25 May 05

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 363, 365 and 302/34-Kidnapping and murder-Previous enmity relating to settlement of Jalkar-Absence of eye-Witnesses on the point of killing-when there is specific allegation of previous enmity and motive for committing murders of deceased and as enmity cuts both ends-If there is probability of accused persons committing murder there is also no less probability of false implication of the accused by informant-In such circumstances quality of evidences and standard of proof establishing the guit shall be required to be of high standards. Evidences on record not sufficient to establish that the appellants along with other accused committed murder of deceased in the manner as alleged-Conviction set aside. (Para 22)

India - Bihar


R VS Lichniak - 25 Nov 02

Mandatory life sentence for murder has a denunciatory value, expressing society s view of a crime which has long been regarded with peculiar abhorrence.

India - Supreme Court


JEETAN KUMARI VS STATE OF U. P. - 21 Dec 15

(Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 – Murder – Conviction – No reliable evidence is available against accused-appellants ‘L’ and ‘S’ for committing murder of deceased and ‘R’ and assaulting injured ‘L’ – However, it is very surprising that not only they were convicted but death punishment was awarded – Hence, conviction in respect of accused ‘L’ and ‘S’ set aside – Other accused-appellants were involved in incident of murder in furtherance of common object – There is not material contradiction to disbelieve statement of PW-6 ‘V’ PW-7 ‘S’ and examination-in-chief of informant ‘L’ PW-1 regarding commission of offence, which is corroborated by statement of witnesses ‘V’ and ‘S’ – Hence, accused-appellants ‘J’ and ‘S’ are guilty of committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and 302/149 I.P.C. – Other appellants except ‘L’ and ‘S’ are guilty of committing murder of deceased ‘S’ and R’ under Section 302 I.P.C. and read with Section 149 I.P.C. as offence was proved beyond reasonable...

India - Allahabad


Ramulu s/o. Lalli Ghantale VS State of Maharashtra - 05 Mar 13

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 304 - Murder or culpable homicide - Determination of - Nature of. - When it was found that accused gave forceful blows on chest of deceased i.e. vital part of body by knife by which heart had punctured and lungs of deceased were seen coming out from wound in such circumstances, accused was held guilty of committing murder and not of culpable homicide as had intention to commit murder, in view nature of injuries of deceased.

India - Maharashtra


GAFFAR VS STATE OF U. P. - 11 Sep 09

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B—Bail—Principle of parity—It is well settled that parity cannot be sole ground for granting bail to co-accused—From perusal of case diary and other materials on record—Shows that applicant also had played active role in committing murder by firing on deceased—Prima facie complicity of applicant in committing murder of deceased established on basis of statements of witnesses—Mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal—Such detention in jail not violating of Article 21 of Constitution—Appellant not entitled to bail. Application Rejected.

India - Allahabad


Khalid Abdul Razak Kazi VS State of Maharashtra - 26 Apr 12

Indian Penal Code (1860), Ss.302, 304 Part I - Murder – Conviction –Evidence of witnesses regarding assault on deceased are consistent and also corroborated by FIR - Medical evidence Consistent with prosecution case - Accused persons responsible for committing murder of both deceased – However, in view of suppression of injuries sustained by accused persons and in absence of explanation thereof it cannot be said that accused had intention to commit murder of both deceased - Conviction altered to one under S.304, Part-I. (Paras 9 to 11)

India - Maharashtra


K. Siddaraju S/o Kempaiah VS State of Karnataka - 17 Nov 17

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 302, 309, 341 - Murder - Accused allegedly committing murder of deceased by stabbing her and thereafter attempting to commit suicide by drinking poison - Evidence of eye-witness revealing that they saw accused cutting neck of deceased and later drank pesticide - Mother of deceased deposing that accused had made previous attempts to marry deceased which she denied and on account of it he committed her murder - Recovery of blood-stained Slippers and Jerkin of accused proved by evidence of prosecution - Medical reports supporting case of prosecution - Conviction of accused, held, proper.

India - Karnataka


Jagdish VS State Of Haryana - 12 Dec 97

The direct evidence against the accused in committing the murder cannot be discarded merely because the prosecution case about hatching a conspiracy by the co-accused has not been established by any convincing evidence.

India - Supreme Court