Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that since the convict assaulted his wife with a brick in the spur of the moment, the case would fall under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, i.e., Section 304-II of the IPC.
“The manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased with predetermination definitely indicated that he was guilty of the offence of murder and not culpable homicide.”
The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to the doctor was not considered as the appellant was in Police custody and after that, he was accompanied by a Police constable for his medical examination.
“Scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal.”
The appellant latched the house from outside when his wife was inside the house and had caught fire. This clearly shows that he had prevented the children from helping their mother and saw to it that she suffered fatal burn injuries.
“The failure of the prosecution to explain the genesis and origin of the occurrence has the effect of prosecution failing to bring on record the correct version of the event.”
“It was inexplicable and incomprehensible how a mother who loved her children and who had a cordial relation with her husband could resort to such a violent act and be attributed with the “intention to cause death” of her beloved children, except for coming under some influence or forces beyond her control as claimed by her.”
The High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved and the accused not having offered any explanation regarding the death of the deceased, which occurred while they were living together.
“The motive for the commission of the offence was absent and the same was very relevant as the case was based on circumstantial evidence.”
“If the recovery memos had been prepared in the police station itself or signed by the panch witnesses in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction.”
“The circumstances taken cumulatively must be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that, within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. While there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence.”
“It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime.”
“The requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense.”
“Considering the backlog of appeals pending before this Court, the chance of the appeal being heard in near future is extremely remote.”
“It is most unfortunate that the convicts had to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of about 14 years due to the failure of the authorities concerned to take note of the fact that they were juveniles at the time of the commission of the crime.”
“It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt.”
“The nature and location of the injuries inflicted, the choice of weapon, and the circumstances of the attack unequivocally establish the liability of the convict for causing the death of the deceased.”
No separate category is carved out as an exception to the normal Rules of remission provided under Section 4321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for a Police personnel committing heinous crime of murdering his pregnant wife.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on commutation of sentence, dating back to the year 1954.
“In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”