Case list for defendant

1. Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234 (Para 31); AIR 2002 SC 1661; 2002 CrLJ 2034 [still have to search]

2. Mahavir Biswas v. State (1995) 2 SCC 25; 1995 SCC (Cri.) 3083. State v. ThingnamDhabalo Singh, AIR 1955 Mad 1; 1955 CrLJ 139 [NOT FOUND]4. Rustomji v. state, AIR 1971 SC 1087; 1971 CrLJ 9335. N. Nagarajana v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 CrLJ 1007, 1009 (Mad.)6. Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 MP 17 7. Vali Isa Mahmed v. State , AIR 1963 Guj 1358. Pralhad D. Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ 2558, para 9 9. Ram Kumar v. King Emperor, ILR (1936) 12 Luck 553 10. Dharmbir v. Cetral Bureau of Investigation, 148 (2008) DLT 28911. State of Rajasthan v N K, AIR 2000 SCW 140712. ChuniLal v State of Himachal Pradesh, 1995,CrLJ 1393 (HP). [ not found] Vide

BhagatBahadur v. State, 1996 CrLJ 2201 Para 44 (Del.) 13. Anil Gopal Prasad Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006, CrLJ(NOC) 569 (MP) [not

found]14. NiranjanLal v. State of Haryana, 1995 CrLJ 248 (para 14) (P&H)15. State v. Gantt, 26 N.C. App. 554 [CHECK FACTS]16. Raghbir Chand &ors. v State of Punjab, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal no. 2028 of 200917. Balbir Singh v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 1762 (para 5) (Ori) 18. AlokeNath Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230, 266 (para 89)19. Om Prakash vs State, AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CriLJ 45220. Jagannath Mishra v. State of Orissa, 1974 Cut. LT 1253; Vide Tejichand v. State of UP,

1997 U.P. CrC (All.) 281 (283) 21. Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 43922. Premlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1969 Jab LJ (Short Note) 2923. Fowler v. Padget, (1898) 7 TLR 509 (514); 101 ER 110324. Mangamma v. State 2008 CrLJ 1365 (AP)25. Manoharan v. State, 2006 CrLJ 4671 (Mad.)26. Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621 27. Anant v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 page 523; Vide LaxmanNayak v. State of

Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692 (para 11): AIR 1995 SC 138728. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343: Vide Sharad Birdi

chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378, 383 (para 12)

29. Vijay kumar v. State, 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 486 (Delhi): 2006 (134) DLT 63930. M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 20031. C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State, (1996) 10 SCC 19332. State of Manipur v. OkaramJitan Singh, 2005 CrLJ 1646, 1650, Para 22, (Gau)33. PravakarPati v. Ajayakumar Das, 1996 CrLJ 2626 para 8 (Ori.)34. Palvinderkaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354; Vide Roshanlal v. state of Punjab,

AIR 1965 SC 141335. Emperor v. Mathuranath De, AIR 1932 Cal. 850; 33 CrLJ 657

36. State of Orissa v. Trinath Das, 1982 CrLJ 942 (Ori.) 37. State v. A.R. Anthony Raj, 2004 CrLJ 1720 (Kant.) 38. Empress of India v. Abdul Kadir, (1880) 3 All. 279 (FB)39. MatukiMisservs Queen-Empress (1885) ILR 11 Cal 619 [check case name]40. Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CrLJ 452

1. Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234 (Para 31); AIR 2002 SC 1661; 2002 CrLJ 2034

2. Mahavir Biswas v. State (1995) 2 SCC 25; 1995 SCC (Cri.) 308

Pabitra Bhattacharjee and Tapan Ghosh (the two victims) along with one Shambhu Debnath were returning to their respective houses in a rickshaw. Immediately thereafter some miscreants led by the two appellants came there, surrounded the two victims, dragged them out of the rickshaw and forcibly took them towards the nearby football ground. Information about the abduction of the two victims was given to the members of their families by Shambhu Debnath on the same night, who in their turn, informed the local police station. On the following morning, their dead bodies were found lying by the side of a water tank on Adahata Road, Naihati with their hands tied and multiple injuries on their person. Thereafter on a written complaint lodged by Debaprasad, the younger brother of Pradip. Trial Court the conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC the two appellants were sentenced to death and the other two to imprisonment for life. High Court while upholding the conviction of the two appellants commuted their sentence to imprisonment for life. Supreme Court dismiss the appeal, so far as it relates to Mahabir, appellant No. 1 but allow that of Shiba @ Bijoy Krishna Dutta, appellant No. 2. Let the appellant No. 2 be released forthwith. The appeal is thus disposed of.

3. State v. ThingnamDhabalo Singh, AIR 1955 Mad 1; 1955 CrLJ 139 [not found]4. Rustomji v. state, AIR 1971 SC 1087; 1971 CrLJ 933  In P.   Rustomji   v .   State   of Maharashtra  (AIR 1971 S.C.1087) the Supreme Court has observed thus:- "It is not every threat, inducement or promise even emanating from the person in authority that is hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. In order to attract the bar, it has to be such an inducement, threat or promise, which should lead the accused to suppose that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. In the case before us what is it that the appellant has been told? He has been told that the law requires him to tell the truth and if he does not tell the truth, he may be prosecuted under Section 193, I.P.C for giving false evidence. This, we have held, does not constitute a threat under Section 24 of the Evidence Act".

5. N. Nagarajana v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1996 PW-1 is the District Supply Officer, Dharampuri and PW-2 is the District Revenue Officer and Additional District Collector. Both inspected the godown of Civil Supplies Corporation at Krishnagiri. During the said sojourn they found 9 tonnes of rice sent by Krishnagiri Co-operative Society in the Godown only in the name of the draft. When both the witnesses inspected the registers and records and accounts of the Krishnagiri Co-operative Sales Society and found

there was an entry for receipt of 9 tonnes of rice dated 19-12-1981, but however, distributed 7 tonnes of boiled rice and a quantum of two tonnes of rice was balance standing as stock. It has been stated that they found that the quantum of 7000 kilos of rice has been distributed to Kakkanpuram Co-operative Society and despatch was ascertained from the verification made in Ex. P. 29 the stock register of the Krishnagiri Co-operative Sales Society and it was found that 2000 kilos of balance rice was not available.On recording the voluntary statement given by the revision petitioner herein in the presence of PW-2, PW-1, in which the revision petitioner is stated to have admitted the entries made in Krishnagiri Co-operative Sales Society Stock register and that the missking quantum of the rice has been sold by him to one Sakthi for higher monetary benefit and thus he has admitted his overt act.  Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The revision petitioner is set free of all charges.

6. Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The prosecution story is that a dacoity was committed in village Piparia-Mishar in the bouses of Ratansingh, Amansingh and Ganeshsing. A list of ornaments plundered from the three houses was also sent (Ex. P-3). During investigation it was found that the dacoits reside in villages Mangola and Kabirpur. The two villages are close to each other. Appellants Bhaggi and Mullu are residents of village Mangola, while the other appellants come from village Kabirpur. The conviction of the appellants is based on certain discovery of ornaments and on confessions of appellants Girdhari, Halkai and Bhaggi alias Bhagirath. Shri R.S. Dabir, learned Counsel for the appellants, strenuously argued that both the discovery and the confessions have been obtained by threats and by beating by the Sub-Inspector of Police. I have no doubt that this is true. The witness states that the Sub-Inspector asked each villager whether he had committed the dacoity. On his answering the question in the negative, he was beaten; and then a question would be asked as to where the property was. The witness added that appellant Mullu cannot see during night, as he is short-sighted, and he cannot walk without a Lathi and a lantern. The witness also stated that accused Buddha was so much beaten that he passed stools. On the basis of this evidence, which I believe to be true, Shri R.S. Dabir argues that the fact of discovery of the ornaments should not be believed and that the confessions must be held to be involuntary. M. P. HC allow the appeals of all the seven appellants, set aside the conviction and the sentence passed and order that they be acquitted in this case.

7. Vali Isa Mahmed v. State , AIR 1963 Guj 135 Accused No. 1 was in the service of the deceased Shantilal for seven years and that on account of certain, suspicion against accused No. 1, deceased Shantilal removed him from service. On this account accused No. 1 conspired with

accused No. 2 and others to encompass the death of Shantilal. According to the prosecution, on 19-3-60 when the deceased Shantilal had gone on his bicycle to visit a neighboring village and when he was returning home, he was way-laid and murdered by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and others. As he did not return home, his relatives became anxious and searched for him, His dead body was recovered which was taken out of a, well and identified. There were injuries, on the head and the left leg was completely cut. Gujarat High Court set aside the convictions of accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302,  Indian Penal Code , and the sentence passed upon them under that section. But they are convicted underSection 201,  Indian Penal Code , and both accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

8. Pralhad D. Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra , 1996 CrLJ 2558, para 9 Bhimrao Patil, since deceased, was married to Mainabai daughter of Dnyanoba Gajbhiye. the appellant and other acquitted accused Ramesh are the sons of accused No. 1 Dnyanoba. They were residing jointly in the house at Narkhed. The prosecution case further is that Bhimrao and Mainabai were not pulling on well together. Their relations were strained and accused had a grudge against Bhimrao because of illtreatment by him to Mainabai and, therefore, in the night the accused assaulted Bhimrao throughout the night by sticks and other weapon by tying his hands and legs by rope. He died. For a day, the body was concealed in the house of the accused and in the night, the accused tied the big stone with the coconut rope on the dead body and it was thrown in manhole of the septic tank and manhole was closed. As Bhimrao did not return to Mowad, his brother PW 5 came to Narkhed, made inquiries about Bhimrao but he could not get any trace so he wrote a latter (Exh. 55) to his brother-in-law showing his suspicion that the accused killed Bhimrao. As the foul smell was emitting from the Gutter, the information was given to Nagar Parishad. The dead body was taken out and information was given to Police Station. convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. but Bombay HC find accused not guilty of any offence. Hence interference is required. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by trial Judge is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence charged with.

9. Ram Kumar v. King Emperor , ILR (1936) 12 Luck 553 [ not found]10. Dharmbir v. Cetral Bureau of Investigation , 148 (2008) DLT 289 11. State of Rajasthan v N K, AIR 2000 SCW 1407 G, PW2, the prosecutrix, was aged 15 years and was living in village BhaniaYana (Jaisalmer) with her father, mother and a younger sister. he prosecutrix was alone in her hut busy washing clothes on a water pump. NK, the accused-respondent was known to the prosecutrix since before. He came to her and initially asked for water which she provided in a lota. The accused then asked for a knife for peeling the skin

of a cucumber. The prosecutrix brought the knife and handed it over to him. When the prosecutrix was about to turn and go back, the accused caught hold of her . He twisted her hand on her back and forcibly took her to a nearby place called Bhitian, , i.e., a place surrounded by walls and raped her. Supreme Court hold the accused/respondent guilty of the offence charged i.e. under Section 376 of the I.P.C.[case not related]12. ChuniLal v State of Himachal Pradesh, 1995,CrLJ 1393 (HP). [ not found] Vide

(I) Bhagat Bahadur v. State, 1996 CrLJ 2201 Para 44 (Del.)

deceased Pushpa Devi was living with her husband PW-7 and the appellant Bhagat Bahadur was employed with them as a domestic servant at the relevant time. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased lady, being of short-tempered nature, was not satisfied with the work and conduct of appellant Bhagat Bahadur and often used to scold him which was being resented by the appellant who used to be pacified by other family members. One day she was alone in the house and when her had come back and found that the main gate of the house was lying open and on entering the drawing room, he, found the blood lying on the sofa and he went towards the kitchen as the blood stains were leading to that place and he found his mother Pushpa lying in a pool of blood in half naked condition having numerous wounds on various parts of her body. Arvind immediately contacted his neighbours and also informed his father and to the police on the telephone. It was mentioned in the statement of Arvind that the domestic servant namely appellant Bhagat Bahadur was found missing from the house and despite being searched, he could not be found and he expressed the suspicion that the said servant had murdered his mother. two appellants have been convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but Delhi HC allow the appeals and set aside the convictions and the sentences of the appellants and acquit the appellants of the charges. 

13. Anil Gopal Prasad Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006, CrLJ(NOC) 569 (MP) [not found]

14. NiranjanLal v. State of Haryana, 1995 CrLJ 248 (para 14) (P&H)

Complainant Subhash and his brothers Krishan and Jaswant, had purchased one tractor mark Ford of blue colour. three persons came to the house of Krishan deceased and agreed to purchase the tractor for Rs. 1,36,000/-. They paid Rs. 50/- as advance money and told that they will pay the remaining consideration on July 4, 1989. On the same evening, Krishan deceased went to the fields with the tractor for ploughing the land and he did not return till 11.00 P.M. His brother Jaswant and elder brother Subhash went in search of Krishan and found harrow of the tractor lying in the field near the dead body of Krishan which was smered with blood. The tractor was missing. After leaving Shiv Karan and Jaswant at the spot, Subhash accompanied by Ram Kumar and Rattan Lal went to Police Station

Jatusana and lodged a report. He suspected these three persons for the commission of murder of his brother and removal of the tractor whose description was incorporated in the first information report. Since there is no conclusive evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellants, their conviction cannot be maintained. As a result Punjab-Haryana HC set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and acquits them of the offences.

15. State v. Gantt, 26 N.C. App. 554 [ CHECK FACTS]

The defendants were charged in bills of indictment with (1) breaking and entering a building occupied by Viewmont  Pharmacy in Hildebran with intent to commit a felony, to wit larceny; (2) felonious possession of housebreaking implements; and (3) attempted safecracking. Both defendants pled not guilty to the charges.

The evidence for the State tended to show that Detective Lee Brittain received a call that someone had seen subjects run through a yard and into the Viewmont Pharmacy in Hildebran. Brittain observed Gantt and Arnette along with three other boys at the back door of the pharmacy and Arnette was carrying a black bag in his hand. Several of the boys lifted Gantt up to remove the light bulb from its receptacle over the back door, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Another boy eventually removed the bulb. Brittain then heard a noise at the door whereupon the door flew open and all five boys went into the building. Some time later after reinforcements had been called, the officers rushed the door and Arnette and Gantt were observed running by the side of the building. One of the remaining three came out of the building and gave himself up. The other two were found inside the building. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdicts, and that both defendants had a fair trial.