#murder Archives - Page 2 of 6

19 Apr

“Contradictions are far too trival so as to discard the entire prosecution case” – SC

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #murder

Case title:-RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Case No:-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1258 OF 2010

Decided on:-16th April , 2024.

Quorum:-Mehta, J.

Facts of the case:-

The current appeal is addressed against the ruling rendered on July 27, 2007, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench in Gwalior, wherein Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1998 was filed. By the appellant was rejected, and the ruling and decree dated November 9, 1998, issued in Session Case No. 70 of 1987 by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Behind, Madhya Pradesh (henceforth referred to as the “trial Court”), was maintained.The appellant in this case was tried for the murders occurred in two different instances, as well as for attempting to kill during the event that resulted in Kaptan Singh’s death. On November 10, 1985, both of these tragedies happened in the Madhya Pradesh village of Bhajai, in the District of Bhind. Following the trial, the learned trial court cleared the accused appellant of Kalyan Singh’s murder in a decision dated November 9, 1998, stating that the two eyewitnesses who testified against the appellant for the aforementioned incident were unreliable witnesses because they failed to identify the accused appellant in their testimonies provided to the investigating officer. The appellant was found guilty and sentenced as stated above by the learned trial court for the killing of Kaptan Singh and the attempted murder .It should be mentioned that the appellant in this case is said to have served approximately 22 years in prison with remission and more than 14 years of substantive imprisonment. Two of the accused appellant’s associates; Kaptan Singh (dead) was killed and Indal Singh was injured by a fire arm. Singh was shot with a gun and later passed away.

Appellant Contentions

The appellant counsel stated that the prosecution case was entirely made and untrue wherein furtherance to which the prosecution’s witnesses did not provide an explanation for fatal injuries. As a result, the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony is not credible or trustworthy claimed that a cross case was filed against six members of the complainant side who were found guilty by the trial court of the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC and members of the complainant party who were found guilty in the cross case, it is obvious that they were the aggressors and, as a result, the accused appellant deserves to be exonerated by granting him the benefit of the doubt and the right to a private defense involving extensive cross-firing; the accused appellant did not sustain a single injury, and it is evident that the prosecution witnesses have not revealed the truth about what happened and their role in it. The evidence is corrupt and not reliable.By granting the accused appellant the benefit of the doubt and the right to a private defense, he should be found not guilty.

Respondent Contentions

Furthermore, it was argued that the accused appellant did not sustain any injuries in an incident involving widespread cross-firing, proving that the prosecution’s witnesses have not provided an accurate account of what happened and that their testimony is tainted and unreliable. The learned senior counsel went on to say that the High Court did not rely on. And where six members of the complainant’s side were found guilty by the trial court.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The appellant attempted to draw attention to insignificant inconsistencies pertaining to the lack of empty cartridges and other items at the scene of the crime, and the plea of alibi is not tenable because we determine that these inconsistencies are simply too minor to dismiss the prosecution’s case as a whole, which is predicated on a credible group of eyewitnesses whose testimony is supported by the medical jurist’s testimony as well as other relevant facts. There is no flaw in the contested rulings that justifies intervention. As a result, the appeal is rejected since it is without merit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

18 Apr

“Fatal Grapple: The Daylight Murder where the Supreme Court upholds S. 302 of the IPC in a heartbreaking case.”

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #crime, #murder, s.302

Case Title: Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn)

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.788 OF 2012

Dated: April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case, the appellant (Chandan) was accused of murder. The case was first tried in the High Court of Delhi. Aggrieved by the decision, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. It was on May 28, 1993, the deceased (Rakesh) and the accused (Chandan) were walking a few steps ahead of the sister-in-law of the deceased.

The eyewitness (PW-2) saw the two grappling with each other, and then she witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife. Thereafter, he was taken to a nearby clinic and then to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem revealed several ante-mortem injuries, including stab wounds on different parts of the body.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

Throughout the court case, the appellant made a number of arguments. He continued by claiming that the prosecution had not shown that the accused had any motivation for committing the claimed offence.

This argument is valid, but it’s important to remember that the case mostly depends on eyewitness testimony, which is reliable and rarely influenced by a lack of clear motivation. He added that the defence stressed that there is nothing to undermine the witness’s testimony because this is a daytime murder that was observed by a trustworthy eyewitness (PW-2). Consequently, given the direct sight of the action, the motive itself loses much of its significance.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The prosecution, according to the respondent, made a point of highlighting the ocular testimony of the trustworthy eyewitness (PW-2) as strong evidence. It is less important to prove a particular purpose when an eyewitness testimony gives the court confidence.

The eyewitness testimony’s credibility is not greatly impacted by the simple lack of a clear motivation. The prosecution emphasised the type and extent of the deceased’s antemortem injuries. The medical examination revealed many wounds on different parts of the body, consistent with a vicious stabbing attack. Particularly, Injury No. 5 involved the pericardium and the tip of the left ventricle of the heart, penetrating the chest cavity and pointing upward. These wounds were enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: The appellant was convicted under this section, which deals with the offense of murder. It prescribes punishment for intentionally causing the death of another person.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The case was first tried in the Delhi High Court. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant (Chandan) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution’s evidence, which included the accused’s arrest and an Indica automobile with bloodstains from the deceased on the rear seat, was deemed convincing by the trial court.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution provided all the evidence necessary to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had established its case, as both the trial court and the appellate court correctly concluded. The credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the type of antemortem injuries the deceased had sustained were key components of the case.

To summarize, the accused was found guilty of murder by the courts because they considered the prosecution’s evidence to be credible. The absence of a clear motivation had no appreciable effect on the case, and the eyewitness testimony was essential in establishing guilt.

Judgment reviewed by- Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

18 Apr

“Supreme Court relieves DMRC of hefty arbitral award to DAMEPL in a Curative Petition.”

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #murder, s.302

Case Title: Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn)

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.788 OF 2012

Dated: April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale

FACTS OF THE CASE:

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: The appellant was convicted under this section, which deals with the offense of murder. It prescribes punishment for intentionally causing the death of another person.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

Judgment reviewed by- Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

21 Mar

Testimony of “injured witness” unreliable; Prosecution failed to establish the case on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #beyond reasonable doubt, #injured witness, #interested witness, #murder, #prosecution, #right to self defence, #testimony

Case title – Periyasamy Vs The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 270 OF 2019 with CA No. 271 OF 2019

Decision on – March 18th, 2024

Quoram – Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol

Facts of the case

In the present case, the issue is regarding the death of two persons who were stabbed by A-1 at the instigation of A-2.

On 3rd March 2002, Dharmalingam (D1 deceased) after procuring liquor in an earlier completed transaction demanded more brandy on credit from the owners and workers of Saravana Wine Shop. A quarrel arose, and a showcase of the shop was smashed, and the bottles stored therein were damaged.

In this course of events, it is alleged that D-1 retrieved a knife and stabbed one Thangavel (one of the owners of the shop). Consequently, A-1, caused fatal injuries to D-1 and stabbed one Thangavel5 (D2 deceased). A-1 with a knife caused fatal injuries to D-1. He also stabbed Sakthivel (son of Muthuveeran) in his stomach repeatedly.

When D-2 intervened to prevent the attack, A-1 stabbed him as well. While D-1 and D-2 were being taken to the hospital, on the way, both succumbed to injuries.

Sakthivel, who was suffered the injuries, reported the incident to the Police Inspector at the Hospital. Based on his statement, FIR was registered. Upon investigation, A1 and A2 were charged under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.

The trial Court convicted A-1 under Section 302, IPC, for the murder of D-1 and D-2 and A2 under Section 109 of IPC for abetting the murder of D-1.

The Madras High Court subsequently confirmed the judgement and order of the Trial Court in convicting A1 and A2.

Issue – Whether the convictions handed down to A-1 and A-2 are established on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Contentions on behalf of A-1

The Counsel submitted that all witnesses testified were interested in the case’s outcome and therefore, were unreliable. He contended that the events unfolded were the result of a spur-of-the-moment quarrel in which the accused also sustained grievous injuries and thus pleaded an exception under right of self defence.

Contentions on behalf of A-2

It was argued on behalf of A-2 that his presence at the scene of the crime was never established. Four limbs of A-1’s arguments, i.e., delay in lodging the FIR; almost all witnesses qualifying as interested witnesses; there being no enmity between the involved persons; and the lack of independent witnesses, were adopted by A-2.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

The respondent had filed detailed submissions which attempted to discredit and rebut all the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons. In doing so, the State also relied on various judgments from this Court.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court analyzed the law relating to “right to self defence” and “interested witness”. It also examined the merit of the statements given by the witnesses and pointed out that the there was a needs to strike a balance between the “injured witness” and “interested witness”

The Court highlighting several lapses on the part of the prosecution in proving the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt noted that the conviction handed down by the Courts to A-1 and A-2 is not sustainable. Further, it held that the testimonies of the injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer are not reliable which rendered the prosecution case weak in the eyes of law.

The Court considering the submissions of both the parties and examining the evidence on record made the following observations –

Examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them;
No independent witnesses were examined;
There was a delay in filing the FIR;
There were interpolations on record;
There were numerous lapses in the investigation; and
The medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution’s version of events.

In light of the above findings, the Court acquitted the appellants and set aside their conviction orders.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

7 Mar

The Ossification test is a last resort under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for the determination of age: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #age determination, #birth certificate, #Juvenile Justice Act, #murder, #Ossification Test, #school certificate

Case title – Vinod Katara vs State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case no. – Writ Petition (CRL.) No(S). 121 OF 2022

Decided on – March 05, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

This writ petition arises from a very peculiar set of facts and circumstances. The petitioner along with other three co-accused was convicted for the offence of murder by the Trial Court and were sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for life. The convicts including the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and upheld the conviction of the petitioner.

The petitioner further filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed in the year 2016.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while considering a PIL directed the Juvenile Justice Board of UP to hold enquiries for determination of age of the convicts, to detect if the convicts were juveniles at the time of the incident.

In accordance with the order, the petitioner was also subjected to examination by a Medical Board. The Medical Board conducted X-rays of the skull and sternum of the petitioner and opined that the petitioner was 56 years of age as of 10th December, 2021.

This gave a new ray of hope to the petitioner to try his case. The petitioner hence, preferred a writ petition before the apex court claiming that he was around 15 years of age on the date of the incident (i.e. 10th September, 1982) and sorted to address his claim of juvenility. The Court referred the matter to Sessions Court with pertinent directions.

Court’s observation

The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, considering the existing evidence, the date of birth of the petitioner was 2nd July, 1960 and he was major on the date of the incident. Further, the Judge noted the fact, as stated by the Chairman of the Board, that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after the age of 25 years. Hence, reported the same to the Supreme Court.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused age cannot be accurately determined by X-ray report is unsustainable as the same was confirmed by the Medical board on 10th December, 2021. He contended that the attendance register/school record of the petitioner is an unreliable piece of evidence.

He contended that as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 where reliable school record is not available; the Court can place reliance either on other documentary evidence or in its absence, on the X-ray reports which determine the age of the person.

The Counsel, thus, presented the family register wherein the year of birth of the petitioner was shown to be 1968 and the medical report dated 10th December, 2021 to be considered in deciding the case.

Submissions on behalf of the State

On the contrary, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad learned AAG submitted that the inquiry report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge is based on detailed process of collection of evidence and analysis.

He contended that the date of birth is inferred from the school records of the petitioner after thorough evaluation by the Judge and hence, the same cannot be rebutted on any ground.

Judgement

The Supreme Court considering the report of the Sessions Judge and re-examining the evidence on record held that the date of birth of the accused-petitioner is 2nd July, 1960. The Court further held that the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is valid.

The Court inquiring into the requisites under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act for the determination of age noted that school certificate and birth certificate occupy the priority position and only in the absence of such documents the ossification test needs to be considered. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

1 2 3 4 … 6