{"id":219328,"date":"2019-09-10T09:30:50","date_gmt":"2019-09-10T04:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=219328"},"modified":"2019-09-16T16:17:34","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T10:47:34","slug":"chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/","title":{"rendered":"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn’t satisfy procedural sanctity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ. allowed a criminal appeal and quashed the order of the trial court whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for committing the murder of the deceased.<\/p>\n

The accused was charged for murdering the deceased with whom he was in an illicit relationship. He was convicted by the trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence — mainly, the positive opinion of Fingerprints Expert. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the accused-appellant, contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not so complete as required to prove the guilt of the accused. Per contra, Santosh Bharat, P. representing the State supported the impugned order.<\/p>\n

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in\u00a0Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,\u00a0<\/em>(1984) 4 SCC 116<\/a>. It was observed:\u00a0“When we examine the circumstantial evidence available in the case vis-a-vis the defects in the investigation, it is seen\u00a0that the report of the Fingerprints Expert though is positive for the prosecution but there is no proof as to who collected the finger prints from the spot. The prosecution has not filed the memo of obtainment of fingerprints from the spot.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was then noticed that the memo of obtaining fingerprints of the accused did not carry the date, or the signature of the accused, or signature of the person who classified and tested it. It was observed further:\u00a0“More importantly, if on the date of obtaining the impressions, the accused was in judicial custody, the said impressions could not have been obtained without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, the document does not satisfy the test of legal and procedural sanctity in either of the terms. If on the said date the accused was in police custody then the document should carry the signatures of witnesses as well as the accused and if he was in judicial custody there should have been permission from the concerned Magistrate. Since, it is not proved that the admitted fingerprints said to be of the accused were obtained from him while he was in custody, the report of the Fingerprint Expert is not such evidence which can be relied upon as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Similarly, laches were noted in other evidence as well and it was held that the prosecution had failed to knit together the chain of circumstantial evidence so as to lead to only one conclusion — guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the accused was set aside.[Kishan Singh Parvana v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 95<\/b><\/a>, decided on 29-07-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ. allowed a criminal appeal and quashed the order of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3468,2948,37498,2519],"class_list":["post-219328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-conviction","tag-murder","tag-report-of-fingerprints-expert","tag-Sentence"],"yoast_head":"\nChh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ. allowed a criminal appeal and quashed the order of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-10T04:00:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-16T10:47:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/chattisgarh_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/\",\"name\":\"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-10T04:00:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-16T10:47:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn’t satisfy procedural sanctity\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity","og_description":"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ. allowed a criminal appeal and quashed the order of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-10T04:00:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-16T10:47:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/chattisgarh_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/","name":"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn't satisfy procedural sanctity | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-09-10T04:00:50+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-16T10:47:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/chh-hc-report-of-fingerprints-expert-held-not-sufficient-to-prove-guilt-of-accused-where-taking-of-finger-prints-doesnt-satisfy-procedural-sanctity\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chh HC | Report of Fingerprints Expert held not sufficient to prove guilt of accused where taking of finger prints doesn’t satisfy procedural sanctity"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":146851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/03\/chain-of-circumstantial-evidence-should-be-so-complete-that-no-other-probability-other-than-accused-being-perpetrator-arises\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":0},"title":"Chain of circumstantial evidence should be so complete that no other probability other than accused being the perpetrator arises","author":"Saba","date":"August 3, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed against the decision of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for murder under S. 302 of the Penal Code of 1860, a Division Bench comprising of T.V. Nalawade and Sunil K. Kotwal, JJ, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272355,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/orissa-high-court-upholds-conviction-murder-deceased-rigorous-imprisonment-circumstantial-evidence-witness-relation-with-deceased-testimony-discarded-legalnews-legalupdates-legalresearch\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":1},"title":"Orissa High Court | Witnesses related to the deceased would not result in their testimonies being discarded if otherwise truthful and consistent","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Orissa High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the Trial court ruling, convicting the accused under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (\u2018IPC') a Division Bench of S Muralidhar CJ., and R K Pattanaik J. upheld conviction under Section 302 IPC by examining circumstantial evidence in detail and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/orissa_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/orissa_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/orissa_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/orissa_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/orissa_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":171534,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/01\/burden-proof-falls-upon-person-special-knowledge-fact-known\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":2},"title":"Burden of proof falls upon the person who is in special knowledge of a fact known only to him","author":"Saba","date":"December 1, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Vipin Sanghi and P.S. Teji, JJ, upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Sections 498-A and 302 while acquitting him from charges under Section 304-B IPC. The appellant had been convicted by the trial court based on circumstantial\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":312336,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/28\/sc-circumstantial-evidence-must-be-conclusive-before-conviction-in-murder-case-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":3},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Circumstantial evidence must be very strong and conclusive for conviction in murder case (1952) 2 SCC 491","author":"Arushi","date":"January 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on circumstantial evidence.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"circumstantial evidence conclusive in murder case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/nrj_1-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/nrj_1-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/nrj_1-5.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/nrj_1-5.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":199448,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/02\/murder-accused-acquitted-on-benefit-of-doubt-in-absence-of-motive\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":4},"title":"Murder accused acquitted on benefit of doubt in absence of motive","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel, JJ., allowed a criminal appeal directed against the trial court judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 201 and 404 IPC. The appellant was accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to murder the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":142961,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/07\/17\/split-decision-over-culpability-of-a-woman-under-section-201-ipc-for-being-silent-about-the-murder-of-her-husband-by-her-lover\/","url_meta":{"origin":219328,"position":5},"title":"Split decision over culpability of a woman under Section 201 IPC for being silent about the murder of her husband by her lover","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a 2-decade old matter relating to culpability of the accused under Section 201 IPC pertaining to disappearance of evidence in the case of the murder of her husband, the bench of N. V. Ramana and P.C. Pant, JJ gave a split decision and placed the matter before\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}