Penal Code

In this case, deceased allegedly assaulted to death by two appellant-accused herein, father and son, using “tabal” and “axe”. Land dispute between appellants (Appellants 1 and 2) and deceased, was alleged cause of the incident. The High Court upheld conviction of appellants under S. 302 IPC. However, prosecution failed to established case beyond reasonable doubt. […]

No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement – Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed

In this case, held, conviction of all the eight accused persons based on evidence of the sole related eyewitness, held, justified, particularly when there is no vagueness in his testimony with respect to the role ascribed to each one of the accused. Further, A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to

Held, Thus, criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or otherwise has dominion. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly, but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out

The allegations against the appellant had been that on 03.05.2009, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, strangulated them, and threw the dead bodies into the canal; and thereafter, attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning. It was also alleged that the

In this case, deceased was a taxi driver, who was strangulated to death by appellant-accused herein (original Accused 1) along with 4 co-accused, and after burying his dead body, they stole his car taxi and sold it. High Court upheld conviction of appellant herein under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC. It is required to be

The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of

Evidence of child witness cannot be rejected merely because of her age being 12 yrs, but being a child witness, her evidence needs a very careful evaluation with greater circumspection considering the fact that a child witness can always be easily tutored. In the instant case, the   manner   in   which   the   minor   witness identified the

something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick

Ingredients of offences under Ss. 364 and 364-A and distinction between them, clarified. Section 364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, Section 364A further adds to