“Murder was committed by him by 3 gunshot injuries to each of them, hence no doubt, such heinous crime should be deprecated and no amount of criticism can be given to such gruesome act, that too, of his own father and mother.”
While emphasising on the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony, the Calcutta High Court cautioned against its universal application and highlighted the need for evaluation based on the case’s circumstances.
Supreme Court pointed out that the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution in the instant matter through witnesses who supported the prosecution case.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the credibility of injured eyewitnesses.
The Court stated that motive assumes great importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence as without motive, chain of events is incomplete.
Supreme Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.
Supreme Court said that once there is no eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime because in a case of no direct evidence, motive has a major role.
The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is essentially meant for protecting the members of a SC and ST from atrocity or oppression, however, it cannot be allowed to be misused.
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
Tripura High Court: The Division Bench of T. Amarnath Goud and Arindam Lodh, JJ. partly allowed an appeal holding that there was
“We are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it.”
“Unearthing ‘motive’ is akin to an exercise of manual brain-mapping. At times, it becomes herculean task to ascertain the traces of a ‘motive’.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that there is no hard
Bombay High Court: While deciding criminal appeals filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge against
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha Rani, J, dismissed an appeal against conviction under Section 307 of the