Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 120-B , Section 409 , Prevention of Corruption Act,1988  - Section 5 (1) ,  (2)

Acquittal - Appeal against - Idamalayar Hydro Electric Power Project, a multi-purpose power project in Kerala was conceived and completed in the year 1985. During the trial run, several leaks and cracks were noticed in the tunnel lining - Commissioner of Enquiry concluded - Materials placed before it - Prima facie disclosed commission of offences - Punishable under I.P.C. and P.C Act - Special Court found A1, A3 and A6 guilty - Offences punishable under Section 120-B and 409 IPC and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-B of IPC- convicted accordingly - High Court - Acquitted - Appeal - Supreme Court - High Court failed to consider materials - Placed by prosecution - Order of High Court set aside -Special Court restored-A-1, A-3 and A-6 - Awarded RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

Indian Penal Code, 1860  - Section 302

- Acquittal - Scope of interference - Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal - Special Judge convicting respondents u/s. 302 r/w s. 34, IPC - One respondent convicted u/s. 307, IPC - HC re-examining entire evidence - HC concluding that the prosecution story unbelievable - HC acquitting all respondents - HC in its well reasoned and detailed judgment, re-examined the entire evidence - Thorough examination of the entire witness by the HC - Conclusion by HC that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents - View taken by the HC plausible and possible - Not interference - Appeals dismissed.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

Indian Penal Code, 1860  - Section 34 , Section 201 , Section 302 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 100 (4) ,  (5) , The Arms Act, 1959  - Section 25 (1) , Section 27

Murder - Acquittal - Conspiracy - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case that accused 4 & 5 were hired criminals and accused no. 1, 2, 3 and 6 paid money for killing the deceased - Trial Court acquitted accused no. 3 and convicted accused no. 4 & 5 u/s. 302 r/w s. 120B, IPC and awarded death penalty - Accused no. 1, 2, and 6 were convicted u/ss. 302 r/w s. 120B and were awarded life sentence - HC confirmed death sentence against accused 4 & 5, but acquitted the other three accused - Circumstantial evidence against accused 4 & 5 do not constitute a complete chain consistent with the guilt of accused 4 & 5 - Identification by PW-4 cannot be relied upon at all inasmuch there were grave doubts about the presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence - Vital contradiction between the versions of witnesses identifying and the person conducting the TI Parade - Finger print expert has not given any evidence of finger print on the alleged weapon of offence - Acquittal of accused no. 1, 2, 3 and 6 which was upheld by this Court casts a serious doubt on the entire prosecution - Benefit of doubt to be given to accused 4 & 5 - Conviction set aside - Appeals disposed of.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 304-B , Section 498-A , Section 302 , Section 34

Dowry death - Demand of 80,000 and 6000 for supply for dowry articles- agreed - Not paid - Harassment for remaining amount - Accused and deceased stayed together at various places - Deceased poured kerosene - Lighted - Got burns. Dying declaration - Discrepancy - One given to witness - Other to judicial magistrate - Cannot be relied upon - No version of pouring kerosene. F.I.R delay - 17 hours - After death - Suspicious - High court - Acquitted two accused from all charges - State appeal - Partly allowed - Against husband - Convicted u/s-320 - Life imprisonment.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 147 , Section 148 , Section 149 , Section 302 , Section 307 , Section 324

Charge sheeted - Acquittal by trial court - Four accused Convicted by high court u/s-320/34 - State Appeal allowed - Acquittal maintained against-3 accused - Appeal - Evidence considered at large-Non examination of bus crew-not fatal -Prosecution story. F.I.R delay - Conditions considered - Injured having 58 injuries - All cut and incised - Taken to various hospital - Delay explained. Independent witness - An auto rickshaw driver-his evidence cannot be discarded - High court fully justified - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 307

Conviction - Appeal to Supreme Court - Medical evidence - Allegation of fire arm injury - P.M report - Lacerated wound-cast doubt - Acquittal of 302 - No offence u/s-307 - Converted and convicted u/s-325 r/w 34 IPC - Under gone - Appeal modified.

Found In:  Judgement

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  - Section 138

Section 138 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Dishonour of cheque - Cheating - Conviction cannot be for both offence - Facts are same - Offences different - Barred - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section300(1) - Appeals Allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 307 , Section 34 , Section 323

Murder - Accused stabbed the deceased on his chest with their respective 'Gatras' - One accused stabbed the PW1 on the elbow of his right arm - Accused-appellant and his brother also sustained injuries in the same commotion - Trial Court acquitted the accused - Acquittal set aside by High Court - Accused convicted u/sec. 302 and 307 r/w sec. 34 I.P.C - Appeal against - Statement of prosecution witness and doctors establishing that a free fight taken place in which both sides members got injured and one person succumbed to the injuries - No evidence that appellant had voluntarily caused hurt on the person of the deceased - Appellant act not deliberate and pre-planned in order to do away the life of the deceased - Free fight erupted at the spur of the moment - Supreme Court considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injuries sustained by the appellant - Conviction of appellant altered from sec. 302 to sec. 323 - Sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 120-B , Section 304 , Section 34

Murder - Right of self defense - Conviction - Accused hitting the deceased with a hammer on his head causing death - Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal against - Prosecution failed to establish any motive to commit crime - Doctor examining the deceased declared hostile - Inconsistent pleas taken by the accused - High Court acquitting the accused of the charges u/sec. 302 read with 120-B for committing the murder of the deceased - Supreme Court observing that High Court did not consider incriminating circumstances - Accused did not explain as under what circumstances the deceased suffered the grievous injuries on the vital parts of his body - Nature and number of injuries on the body of deceased establishing that accused exceeded right of self defense - High Court showed misplaced sympathy towards accused - One accused personally went to nearby hospital and not only got the deceased admitted in the hospital but donated their own blood to save his life - Thus, in spite of the fact that they committed the offence they did not intend to kill the deceased - Impugned order of High Court set aside - Trial court order modified to the extent that accused held guilty under Section 304 Part-II r/w Section 34 IPC - Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34 , Section 120-B , Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987  - Section 3

Confession - Bombay Bomb Blasts Case - Conviction under - Appeal against - Admissibility of confession against co-accused not charged under the TADA Act - -Main accused entered into criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased so that their involvement in the Bombay Bomb Blasts not revealed - When independent evidence supports the confessional statement, there is no harm in relying upon the confession - Merely because the confessional statement of both the accused is more or less similar, it cannot vitiate the probative value of such confessional statement - The confessional statement made by a person under Section 15 shall be admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession - Evidence on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the motive - Designated Judge (TADA) justified in convicting and sentencing co accused for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC - Intention of the accused was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding another crime from being divulged - TADA Court justified in dismissing the charges framed under the TADA Act - Appeals dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement