October 2017

Relation witness–Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Applicability of Section 300 Exception 4–Discussed. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Sudden fight– A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side–The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side–For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1.

By | October 14th, 2017|Evidence - Criminal Cases|

Comments Off on Relation witness–Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Applicability of Section 300 Exception 4–Discussed. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder–Sudden fight– A “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side–The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side–For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1.

June 2017

March 2017

January 2017

November 2016

October 2016

S.302-Murder-Burden of Proof-Facts in special knowledge-Admittedly, deceased went to house of accused to get his money back-Appellant wanted the Court to believe certain facts; (i) that deceased had fallen from the wall in his house and died due to injuries suffered by him and (ii) that at the time of occurrence he was not in the house; therefore it was for him to prove the said facts which were exclusively within his knowledge-When he admitted that deceased had come to his house, only he could explain how deceased, who was alive turned into a dead body-No sufficient explanation given-Conviction upheld-Evidence Act, 1872, S.106.;; Satbir v. state of Haryana : 2016(1) Law Herald (P&H) 485 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 567

By | October 29th, 2016|Evidence - Criminal Cases, Murder|

Comments Off on S.302-Murder-Burden of Proof-Facts in special knowledge-Admittedly, deceased went to house of accused to get his money back-Appellant wanted the Court to believe certain facts; (i) that deceased had fallen from the wall in his house and died due to injuries suffered by him and (ii) that at the time of occurrence he was not in the house; therefore it was for him to prove the said facts which were exclusively within his knowledge-When he admitted that deceased had come to his house, only he could explain how deceased, who was alive turned into a dead body-No sufficient explanation given-Conviction upheld-Evidence Act, 1872, S.106.;; Satbir v. state of Haryana : 2016(1) Law Herald (P&H) 485 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 567