1860

held, The prosecution has been successful in proving the motive. There was a prior long-time enmity between the deceased and the accused A-1. The defense has failed to prove any circumstances by which it can be said that they are falsely implicated in the case. (Para15). After appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court observed that […]

Does it create substantive offence-Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act – Held that Section 34 is not a substantive offence. Before a person can be held responsible under this section, it must be established that there was a common intention and the person being

The finding of fact is that the act was done by the accused with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, and with the intention to kill the deceased. The accused was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation due to repeated unauthorized entry on the fields of belonging

On the fateful day, the quarrel ensued between the appellant’s mother and wife. The wife went in search of the appellant and found him heavily drunk with his friends. She escorted him back. He fell fast asleep and when he woke up, he found his wife hanging. There is also mention about ill-treatment given by

Ss.  302 and 364 – Kidnapping and murder – conviction based on circumstantial evidence –In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence and that the accused was under extreme mental disturbance due to his wife eloped with the