Ss.279, 337, 338, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, 184 - Rash and negligent driving -
Accused rashly and negligently driving motor cycle at the relevant time not proved by
any of material PWs - None of PWs stated anything specific with regard to speed of
motor-cycle, which dashed against bus - Specific evidence is required to be adduced on
record by prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving, if any, on part of accused -
Mere allegations are not sufficient to hold accused guilty of having committed alleged
offences - Accused rightly acquitted. (H.P.) 009
Ss.279, 337, 338, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, 184 - Rash and negligent driving - Specific evidence is required to be adduced on record by prosecution to prove rash and
negligent driving, if any, on part of accused - Mere allegations are not sufficient to hold
accused guilty of having committed alleged offences. (H.P.) 009
Ss.302, 34 - Murder of wife by husband - Accused were persistently making
demand of dowry from deceased and her family members and they used to harass her for
such cause - Story of suicide as propounded by accused is wholly unreliable, as it is
difficult for a person to commit suicide by using DBBL gun and that too by firing 7 gun
shots one after the other, as 7 gunshot injuries were found on the body of deceased -
Death occurred inside the house and at the time of incident deceased has been staying
with her in-laws and accused persons - No explanation given by accused for the
occurrence - Involvement of accused in commission of crime is established on record -
Accused rightly convicted. ( S.C.) 053
Ss.302, 34 - Murder - Complainant not witnessed the occurrence - He believed
whatever eye witness PW2 informed him - However, conduct and statements of PW2/
eye witness do not inspire confidence - PW3 another eye witness, wife of deceased
though stated to be in shock and not in consciousness for about a month - But no
medical evidence produced in support of such fact - Some notable flaws appear in
prosecution case which cannot be ignored - Looking into unnatural behavior of eye
witnesses and their contradictory statements, it cannot be said that their evidences are
genuine so as to convict accused - High Court rightly disbelieved the presence of eye
witnesses at the place of occurrence - Guilt of accused not proved - Accused rightly
acquitted. ( S.C.) 132
Ss.302, 34 - Murder - Evidence of eye witness/PW3 - PW3 narrated incident that
deceased was attacked by accused explaining role played by each of accused - Evidence
of PW3 also credible and corroborated with medical evidence - Evidence of PW3 cannot
be disbelieved merely on the ground that DW1 stated that on the date of incident PW3
was present in her school, as all the students were marked as present in attendance
register - Evidence of DW1 will not come to rescue accused - Accused rightly convicted.
( S.C.) 065
Ss.302, 34 - Murder - Interested witnesses - Motive of crime is clear as on
previous day of occurrence also, parties met at police station regarding some issue -
Evidence of ocular witnesses narrates guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and
corroborates with medical evidence - Testimonies of interested witnesses provided clear
picture of attack carried on by accused over deceased - Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are
consistent and inspire confidence in the mind of Court - Injuries inflicted on the body of
deceased are grave and capable of causing death instantaneously - Guilt of accused
proved on record - Accused rightly convicted. ( S.C.) 065
Ss.302, 120-B - Murder - Order framing charge - Merely because petitioner
helped co-accused to purchase weapon, motorcycle and spectacles, would not in itself
lead to inference that petitioner also participated in crime, particularly when petitioner
had no knowledge as to for what purposes said weapon, motorcycle or spectacles had
been purchased - Even otherwise, petitioner was not named in FIR and complainant
while appearing in witness box, has not levelled any allegation against petitioner as to
his participation in crime - Prima facie there is no material available on record to order
framing charge against petitioner - Charge framed against petitioner set aside. (Rajasthan)
208
Ss.302, 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased was last seen in
company of accused - Accused and deceased both went together to a liquor shop to
purchase bottle of whisky - Finger prints of accused on whisky bottle and glass and
other seized articles at the scene of occurrence were found by Expert - Recovery of all
seized articles made at the instance of accused - Body of deceased recovered from heap
of hay of PW18 with bleeding injuries - Accused was having some grudge against
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
xi
deceased over some matter - Moreover, accused failed to explain any of circumstances
and kept mum when asked to explain - Chain of events led to death of deceased
established without any break implicating accused - Accused rightly convicted. ( S.C.)
155
Ss.302, 304 - Nature of offence - Incident took place due to sudden provocation
and in a heat of passion which was a result of delay in preparing lunch by deceased -
Accused picked up a wooden object and hit the deceased - Only one single blow was
inflicted - Death of deceased took place 10 days after said incident while she was
undergoing treatment at hospital - Case of accused thus, covered u/s 304 Part II IPC and
not u/s 302 IPC - However, since accused already served 9 years and 3 months of
imprisonment, sentence of accused reduced to period already undergone by him. ( S.C.)
142
Ss.302, 304 Part II - Nature of offence - Sudden Fight between parties, which is
not premeditated - Accused not taken undue advantage of his carrying a ballam in sense
of inflicting any other serious injury except a contusion to PW1 - Intention on the part of
accused to cause death of deceased is missing - Accused must be attributed with
knowledge that piercing left side of chest of deceased with a spear would result in bodily
injury that is likely to cause death but intention to kill is not apparent - Accused convicted
u/s 304 Part II IPC - Since accused has been behind the bars for almost 14 years, sentence
of accused is thus altered to period of incarceration already undergone by him. ( S.C.) 036
S.306 - Abetment of suicide - Eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile -
Accused/father-in-law of deceased shouted and assaulted deceased and not allowed
wife of deceased to go along with him - Alleged refusal of sending wife along with
deceased caused her to commit suicide - Step taken by deceased is nothing but foolish
- Alleged assault by accused not proved on record - Complaint appears to have been
under emotional and sentimental circumstances - No material to hold accused guilty of
offence u/s 306 IPC - Accused acquitted. (Karnataka) 069
S.306 - Abetment of suicide - Reason for committing suicide always has to be
assessed from an independent angel and not from angle of victim or from a person who
is cause for it. (Karnataka) 069
S.342 - Wrongful confinement - Main door of complainant's bedroom was locked
from outside and he was forced to take alternate route through bathroom clearly covers
the act of accused within the definition of wrongful confinement within the mischief of
Ss.341, 342 IPC - Charge u/s 342 IPC held, rightly framed against accused. (Rajasthan)
048
Ss.363, 366, 506, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,S.482 - Offence u/ss 363,
366, 506 IPC - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner No.1 and 2 both are major and now
married each other - FIR quashed. (H.P.) 108
Ss.364, 302, 201, Evidence Act, 1872, S.24 - Abduction and murder of mother by
son - Extra judicial confession - PW10, before whom confessional statement was given
by accused is Village Administrative Officer - PW10 was known person though PW10
did not know accused - As accused himself choose to appear and give confessional
statement before PW10, it cannot be doubted - Even assuming that prosecution failed to
prove accused gaining confidence on PW10 for giving confessional statement, Extra
judicial confessional statement cannot be rejected for that reason alone - Moreover,
within three days of occurrence, it is not possible for investigating agency to cook up
such a chain of events in order to bring home offences against accused - Extra judicial
confession held, inspires confidence. (Madras) (DB) 094
Ss.364, 302, 201 - Abduction and murder of mother by son - Circumstantial
evidence - Deceased was lastly seen alive with accused - He himself admitted that he
used to pester and get money from deceased for his wayward life - Various recoveries made on the basis of extra judicial confession of accused and blood stain found on all
material objects especially on knife strengthened case of prosecution - Admission of
accused and evidence of PWs show that it was accused who committed offences and in
order to screen evidence accused gave car to PW13 for water wash - Defence of accused
rejected - Circumstantial evidence projected by prosecution completely form a chain of
circumstances and in all probabilities, it is proved that it was accused who committee the
offences - Accused rightly convicted. (Madras) (DB) 094
S.366 - Abduction - Evidence on record shows that complainant and accused
were in relationship which was known to their families also - Primary allegation is that
accused took complainant forcibly to his house - But it was not with intent to seduce her
to illicit intercourse - Statement of being molested by complainant at the hands of accused
was not given at once and was given later - At the highest act was done due to sudden
outbreak of emotions or due to sense of insecurity on the part of accused - Charge u/s
366 IPC held, not maintainable. ( S.C.) 015
S.366 - Abduction - Mere abduction not sufficient for an offence u/s 366 IPC - It
must be proved that accused abducted woman with intent to compel her to marry against
her will or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse. ( S.C.) 015
S.366 - Abduction - Once necessary intent of accused is established, offence is
complete, whether or not accused succeeded in effecting his purpose and whether or
not woman consented to marriage or illicit intercourse. ( S.C.) 015
S.376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,S.482 - Rape - Quashing of FIR - False
promise of marriage - Prosecutrix admittedly was married and not legally divorced from
her husband - During subsistence of earlier marriage there could be no promise of
marriage to accused - Allegation that fraud was played on prosecutrix for receiving
consent for sex cannot be substantiated - FIR along with proceeding thereto quashed.
(Delhi) 190
Ss.376, 90 - Rape - Consent on pretext of marriage - Love affair between parties
- Prosecutrix was aged about 25 years on the date of first incident - She stated that she
developed physical relations with accused out of deep love - It cannot be said that
consent given by prosecutrix was on account of any promise of marriage made by
accused - Even assuming that it was so, nothing on record to show that since inception,
accused had no intention to marry prosecutrix as per S.90 IPC - Had the intention of
accused since inception is to exploit prosecutrix, he would not have apprised her about
his family background and financial status - Offence u/s 376 IPC not made out against
accused - Accused acquitted. (Bombay) 183
Ss.376, 90 - Rape - Consent - Physical relationship out of love affair between
parties, cannot constitute rape, as consent given by prosecutrix was not on account of
any promise of marriage made by accused - Accused acquitted. (Bombay) 183
Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 -
Cheating - Quashing of FIR - Material on record shows that in same subject matter and
same facts on basis of which FIR in question has been lodged, there is judgment of
competent Tribunal with categorical finding that petitioner did no wrong - Said judgment
of Tribunal has become final and conclusive as it was not challenged before higher
Courts - Neither police nor criminal Court can be allowed to sit over findings recorded by
Tribunal in same subject matter and adjudicate about the same over and again - Moreover,
sanctity attached to a judgment of a Tribunal cannot be compared with institution of or
exoneration of delinquent in departmental proceedings - Even otherwise, no evidence
on record against petitioner - FIR quashed. (P&H) 058
Ss.448, 341, 380, 34 - Trespass and theft - Specific allegations levelled in FIR
that petitioners trespassed into portioned premises under occupation of complainant in
her absence and stole goods lying there - Merely because petitioners claim that they were in possession of some portion of same premises would not mean that they were in
possession of entire property - List of missing belongings of complainant was also
given to I.O. - Sufficient allegations on record to take a prima facie view about trespass
and theft - Charges rightly framed against petitioners. (Delhi) 168
S.456 - Lurking house trespass - Presence of accused on the terrace of complainant
house in the dead of night that too after locking of complainant with intention to indulge
in illicit intercourse with wife of complainant is undoubtedly covered within the definition
of lurking house trespass as provided u/s 451 IPC, as entry made by accused after taking
offensive measures to conceal discovery by complainant - Charge u/s 456 IPC rightly
framed against accused. (Rajasthan) 048
Ss.463, 464, 465 - Forgery - Unless and untill ingredients u/s 463 are satisfied a
person cannot be convicted u/s 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of S.464, as the
offence of forgery would remain incomplete. ( S.C.) 082
S.464 - Forgery - A charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not
the maker of same - For an offence u/s 464 IPC it is imperative that a false document is
made and accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise accused is not liable for
the offence of forgery. ( S.C.) 082
S.465 - Forgery - False document - Accused not made any false document or part
of document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that false document -
Neither accused No.1 nor accused No.2 can be held makers of forged documents - It is
the imposter who can be said to have made false document by committing forgery -
Prosecution failed to prove its case - Accused rightly acquitted. ( S.C.) 082
S.497 - Adultery - Complainant did not pertinently allege that accused were
actually indulging in sexual intercourse but then fact that they were seen by complainant
on the terrace of his house at 3.30 am in a semi nude compromising position definitely
gives rise to a strong suspicion that they must indulge in sexual intercourse - Preceding
acts of accused before complainant discovered them would undoubtedly be in their
exclusive knowledge and hence, they would have to refute this charge in view of
presumption u/s 106 of Evidence Act - Charge u/s 497 IPC held, rightly framed. (Rajasthan)
048