What is the core issue in the conviction under Section 364/34 IPC for abduction for murder? What is the role of Section 106 and Section 114 Evidence Act in drawing inferences about the murder in this case? What is the correct approach to appellate and trial court remarks about investigation, as discussed by the Supreme Court in this judgment?

Key Points: - (!) The Court confirms abduction for the purpose of murder as the basis for Section 364 IPC conviction. - (!) Abduction must be proven to be for murdering the victim; if murder did not take place, abduction with that objective still completes the offence. - (!) The Court holds that the accused abducted Mahesh with the intent to murder him and were properly convicted under Section 364/34 IPC. - (!) The pristine rule of burden of proof cannot be treated pedantically; presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act can be used where facts prove reasonable inferences of other facts. - (!) Section 114 permits inferring existence of a fact from proved facts; the inferences must be reasonable and relate to the facts established. - (!) Once abduction and proximity to death are proven, inference that the abductors killed him is permissible unless explained by the accused. - (!) Proximity in time and place, plus the proclaimed intention, supports deduction that death was caused by the abductors. - (!) Courts should avoid castigating investigating officers if not necessary; deprecatory remarks are only when absolutely necessary. - (!) On appeal, conviction under 364/34 is upheld; six accused convicted of 302/34 and sentenced to life; sentences run concurrently. - (!) Directs jail placement for ongoing sentences.

What is the core issue in the conviction under Section 364/34 IPC for abduction for murder?

What is the role of Section 106 and Section 114 Evidence Act in drawing inferences about the murder in this case?

What is the correct approach to appellate and trial court remarks about investigation, as discussed by the Supreme Court in this judgment?