Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CRL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name  
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Criminal Law
 Search Tips
Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2017-SC-CRL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2015-SC-CRL-Sep-8

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Nitin Gunwant Shah

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 120-B

Criminal Conspiracy - Held that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy - Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence - However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that meeting of mind is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient.

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34 , Section 120-B , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872  - Section 32 (1)

Murder - Dying Declaration - Complaint Ext.PW15/A1 is alleged to have been filed by the deceased in his own handwriting in Hindi and signed in English, addressed to the SHO not proved by prosecution - PW1 wife of deceased not only deposed that the signature on the complaint Ext. PW15/A1 was not of the deceased and that there never existed any enmity between Nitin Shah and her husband, or that any complaint apprehending threat was filed by her husband - In terms of Section 32(1) of Evidence Act statement as to death must be made by the person himself and if any discrepancy arises, the same cannot be relied upon - Complaint Ext. PW15/A1 thus fails to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Apex as to dying declaration and hence cannot be relied upon.

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34 , Section 120-B

Murder - Criminal Conspiracy - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution has failed to prove the evidence which establishes any prior meeting of mind of the accused - Prosecution merely proved that all the accused were present in Delhi on the date of occurrence, and that the alleged motor-bike and the car used in incident belonged to respondent No.2 - High Court rightly dismissed this argument, as the involvement of the said vehicles in commission of the crime were never proved - Neither any prior meeting of mind of the accused was proved, nor any action, individually or in concert, was proved against any of the accused - Entire foundation of the prosecution story was never established - Appeal liable to be dismissed.

Topic(s)-Murder - Criminal Conspiracy - Circumstantial Evidence - Acquittal , 







Full Judgement Body


     
@2016 Indian Law
Name  
Email ID
Please Wait..