Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Sections 302 & 201 of The IPC

    Uploaded by

    Amit Raj
    The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the conviction of the appellant who was charged with murder and destroying evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused committed the offense after he provided an explanation for the facts within his exclusive knowledge. According to the court, once an accused explains exclusive facts, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove through other evidence that the accused committed the crime. The appellant was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law. Neighbors discovered the daughter-in-law dead and burned in the appellant's house after seeing a fire. The postmortem found the burns were not the cause of death and the death may have been due to brain injuries. The court found no evidence the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sections 302 & 201 of The IPC

    Uploaded by

    Amit Raj
    60 views2 pages
    The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the conviction of the appellant who was charged with murder and destroying evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused committed the offense after he provided an explanation for the facts within his exclusive knowledge. According to the court, once an accused explains exclusive facts, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove through other evidence that the accused committed the crime. The appellant was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law. Neighbors discovered the daughter-in-law dead and burned in the appellant's house after seeing a fire. The postmortem found the burns were not the cause of death and the death may have been due to brain injuries. The court found no evidence the

    Original Title

    3.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the conviction of the appellant who was charged with murder and destroying evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused committed the offense after he provided an explanation for the facts within his exclusive knowledge. According to the court, once an accused explains exclusive facts, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove through other evidence that the accused committed the crime. The appellant was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law. Neighbors discovered the daughter-in-law dead and burned in the appellant's house after seeing a fire. The postmortem found the burns were not the cause of death and the death may have been due to brain injuries. The court found no evidence the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    60 views2 pages

    Sections 302 & 201 of The IPC

    Uploaded by

    Amit Raj
    The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the conviction of the appellant who was charged with murder and destroying evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused committed the offense after he provided an explanation for the facts within his exclusive knowledge. According to the court, once an accused explains exclusive facts, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove through other evidence that the accused committed the crime. The appellant was convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law. Neighbors discovered the daughter-in-law dead and burned in the appellant's house after seeing a fire. The postmortem found the burns were not the cause of death and the death may have been due to brain injuries. The court found no evidence the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of the appellant charged

    under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC on the failure of the prosecution to
    prove accused committed offence after accused explained facts within his
    exclusive knowledge.

    The Principal that Court followed herein was that once the accused explains the facts within
    his exclusive knowledge, the burden in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts on
    the prosecution to prove from other evidence that it was the accused who committed the
    offence.
    The appellant herein was convicted for committing the murder of his daughterin-
    law. His wife had faced the charges for causing the disappearance of evidence of
    crime punishable
    under Section 201 of the IPC. In the house of the appellant, their daughter, son
    and daughterinlaw Parwati were residing jointly. One day, neighbours spotted fire
    in the house of the appellant and eventually found daughterinlaw of the appellant
    dead and burnt.

    Merg intimation was lodged by the appellant Santram himself.


    In the postmortem conducted it was found that the burn was not caused of death
    because it looks postmortem burn. Death may be homicidal and may be due to
    injury to the brain as there is haematoma in the frontal lobe which is well
    demonstrated. There is also not any particle or smoke in airways neither any froth
    nor muscular shreds or necrosis or detached shreds.

    The contention of the Learned Counsel of the appellant herein was that there was
    no evidence that appellant was present in the house at the time of occurrence of the
    accident and therefore, in view of lack
    of any eyewitness or any other incriminating circumstance against him, his
    conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is without any evidence.

    He would further submit that there is absolutely no evidence against Gais Bai to
    the effect that she was aware that the deceased has been murdered and thereafter
    she concealed any evidence of crime.

    Read also : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 3 नाबालऱगों के हत्यारे की मौत की सजा को उम्रकैद में तब्दीऱ ककया
    [ कोर्ट का ननर्टय पढें ]

    On the other hand Learned State Counsel would submit that merg intimation has
    been lodged by the appellant wherein he has not disclosed that he was not present
    in the house. Therefore, under the principle enshrined under Section 106 of the
    Evidence Act, appellant Santram was under obligation to disclose the special facts
    within his knowledge, in the absence of which his conviction under Sections 302
    and 201 of the IPC is fully justified and for the same reason. As per him, his wife,
    the other appellant has been rightly convicted since she too was present.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy