Tag: Section 34 IPC

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Use of Blunt Side of Weapons Key: Supreme Court Converts 302 IPC to 304 in Land Dispute Killing

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below on the appellants' involvement in causing the deaths. However, it altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, finding that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The sentence already undergone was deemed sufficient. Facts Of The Case: On the morning of August 6, 1986, complainant Ram Gopal (PW-1) went with his father and two uncles to a river ghat to measure agricultural land for partition. There, they encountered the four accused appellants, including the owner of the adjacent land, Raghav Prashad. The accused, who were hiding, suddenly emerged and a dispute over the measurement ensued. This altercation quickly turned vi...
Read More
Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case

In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. The Court found the evidence—including motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confessions made in a police station—to be unreliable, insufficient, and lacking credible corroboration to sustain a conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the brutal murder of a police driver on the night of 10th-11th March 2006. The prosecution alleged that the murder was instigated by a fellow policeman, A1, due to his inability to repay a loan of ₹1 lakh to the deceased. The deceased was lured to the house of A1 and A2 (A1's wife) on the false pretext of repaying the debt. ...
Read More
Chain of Circumstances Broken: Supreme Court Frees Accused in Landmark Circumstantial Evidence Ruling
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Chain of Circumstances Broken: Supreme Court Frees Accused in Landmark Circumstantial Evidence Ruling

This Supreme Court judgment acquits the accused based on the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence as mandated by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The court found the evidence regarding motive, last seen, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries to be unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Balwant, whose body was discovered in a waterworks tank in Hisar on December 23, 1997. His father, Har Nath (PW-11), identified the body and filed a complaint, leading to an FIR. The prosecution alleged that the accused—Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir, and Veena—murdered Balwant due to a property dispute, as Shanti Devi was a tenant in his house, and an illicit relatio...
Read More
When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, applying the Bhajan Lal principles. It held that the allegations, even if accepted entirely, did not prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, as their essential ingredients were absent. Continuing the prosecution was deemed an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: During the 2019 General Elections, the Model Code of Conduct was in force in Andhra Pradesh. On March 22, 2019, appellants Manchu Mohan Babu, an educational institution chairman, and his son, along with staff and students, conducted a rally and dharna on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road. They were protesting the state government's failure to provide student fee reimbursements. The gathering, which las...
Read More
Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...
Read More