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