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


Rakesh VS State of Rajashtan - 03 May 00

In absence of evidence that finger prints were given by accused voluntarily, finger print expert evidence that chance finger print tallied with specimen prints could not read against accused.

India - Crimes


Krishan VS State of Haryana - 04 Mar 09

Criminal Law--Murder--Circumstantial evidence--Hostile witness--Appeal against conviction--Case of blind murder as dead body of deceased was found lying in abandoned plot--Material witnesses not supporting case of prosecution and turned hostile--Chain of prosecution case not complete and link evidence missing--Prosecution story seems to be suspicious if statement of all witnesses alongwith circumstances are considered together--Circumstantial evidence not sufficient to hold accused guilty for alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 201. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 & 25)

India - Punjab


Manik Chandra VS Chandra Bhushan - 03 Dec 90

In a case like murder, anticipatory bail cannot easily be granted.

India - Crimes


Ram Chandra VS State of Rajasthan - 09 Sep 03

Cr.P.C., Sec. 389 and 390; Penal Code, Sec. 302 – Principles governing release of accused u/S. 389 and 390 Cr.P.C. – Bail in a case involving serious offence like murder of wife, two sons and two daughters – Held – While considering the bail application in such a case of serious offence the Court is required to see the relevant factors like the nature of accusation, manner of crime committed, gravity of offence, and desirability of releasing accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder – The accused was throughout in confinement during trial – He involved in a very serious offence so there is no difference between these two principles. (Paras 5 & 6)That in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of the accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the...

India - Rajasthan


Arun Bhaurao Kharat VS State of Maharashtra - 06 Jan 15

[INDIAN] PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 302 Proof of murder. Offence of murder, must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, alleged dead body may not be traced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471, observed that : "It is not essential to establish corpus delicti; the fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. The Court observed that........... "in a trial for murder it is not an absolute necessity or an essential ingredients to establish corpus delicti. The fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. Take for instance that a murder was committed and the dead body was thrown into flowing tidal river or stream or burnt out. It is unlikely that he dead body may be recovered. If recovery of the dead body, therefore, is an absolute necessity to convict an...

India - Maharashtra


Alakh Singh @ Anokh Singh VS State Of Punjab - 31 Jan 08

Eye Witness-Going by the natural human conduct all the world over, it would be unnatural to accept that a brother would depose falsely against another with an allegation that the latter had murdered a real brother

India - Punjab


STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DWARKA PRASAD - 25 Jul 17

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354, 313, 43 – Indian Penal Code – Section 302, 201, 364 – Conviction – Prosecution – Contradictions in statement – Capital punishment – Liable – Murder – Dacoity – Provocation – Testimony – Guilt of accused – Imprisonment – Present death reference and appeal arise out of Judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Nagaur in Sessions Case and are being disposed of by this common order since, they arise out of same order – Learned trial Court by judgment aforesaid convicted appellant Dwarka Prasad for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with capital punishment – Besides aforesaid conviction, learned trial Court also convicted accused/appellant Dwraka Prasad for offences under Sections 201 & 364 IPC – By Criminal death reference filed by State, same is before us for confirmation – Held, In entirety, court is of view that there is no material available on record to suggest that appellant is such a hardcore crimina...

India - Rajasthan


Hirdesh Sahu VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 24 Jun 21

Strict compliance of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. should be ensured by Trial Judges, specially in sensitive cases like murder, abduction and rape.

India - Crimes


Ramesh Chand VS State - 25 Sep 01

Penal Code, Sec. 302, 302/34 and 376(2) – Charges of murder, ravishing deceased wife and forcibly taking her ornaments – Trial Court relied on the testimony of wife and convicted u/Sec.302, 304/34 and 376(2) IPC – The woman who did not narrate the incident of murder of her husband to the persons to whom she met, even not attended the last rites of her husband and behaved like a concubine of the accused, is not worthy of any credit – She is an accomplice of the accused in commission of crime. (Paras 6 & 12)In view of the fact that Rukma, who did not narrate the incident of murder of her husband to the persons to whom she met and who did not even attend the last rites of her husband and behaved like a concubine of appellant Ramesh is not worthy of any credit. The prosecution has failed to place before us the true genesis of the incident and on the basis of distorted version the conviction cannot be upheld. (Para 12)

India - Rajasthan