Penal Code

In this case, death of deceased was due to burning in her matrimonial home. Case was based on circumstantial evidence and involvement of husband and mother-in-law (both appellant-accused herein) of deceased was alleged. Conviction of appellants under Ss. 302/34 and 201 IPC was upheld by High Court. The doctor who performed the post mortem opined […]

For determination of culpability of each accused there is necessity of parsing evidence carefully in respect of each accused. High court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions, which are not material contradictions that can affect the case of prosecution as a whole. The presence of injured witness ought not to have been doubted

when Imposition of vicarious liability with aid of S. 34 is permissible and what are the requirements of the same. Significance of amendment made to S. 34 in 1870 adding the phrase “in furtherance of the common intention” is to be construed as an advancement or promotion. Necessity of proving that accused on whom vicarious

First incident of the altercations that took place between the deceased and the accused was stopped by the villagers. Second incident occurring later in which accused causing multiple grievous injuries to vital parts of the deceased with great force, which were the main cause of death and cannot be said to be result of sudden

“Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature. Demand for money raised by the accused on the deceased for construction of a house, held, falls within the definition of the word ”Dowry”

Manner in which is required to be done: In this case of murder by shooting from pistol, it was held that alleged involvement of appellant-accused and two other co-accused in the incident, held, could not be established beyond reasonable doubt as eyewitnesses to the shooting were not aware of identity of assailants. Nor was identity of

In this case, common intention to murder was established against Accused 2 who had exhorted Accused 1 to shoot deceased dead with the firearm. Hence, it was held that Accused 2 rightly convicted for murder under S. 302 with the aid of S. 34. [Omkar Singh v. Jaiprakash Narain Singh, (2022) 3 SCC 281]

In this case, accused was not shown to share common intention to murder nor was a party to conspiracy to murder. Neither was involvement in any conspiracy to murder proved against appellant herein Accused 2, nor could it be established that he shared common intention to murder. (Para 6 to 9). Hence, conviction of Accused

In this case, victim immolating herself in her matrimonial home leading to her death in hospital. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by both courts below on harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty by appellant mother-in-law of victim with regard to jewels, on appreciation of evidence, stand established. Therefore, appellant, held, rightly convicted under S. 498-A. The

Causing injury(ies) to vital part of body which injury(ies) were the actual cause of death: In this case, death occurred six days after the injury(ies) were inflicted. It was held that such case, held, would still fall under S. 302, as such injury(ies) inflicted on vital part of body were the actual cause of the death.