Ranganyaki vs State By Inspector Of Police

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1304

C.K.THAKKER, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Ranganyaki – Appellant
Versus
State By Inspector Of Police – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the correct scope of abetment under Section 107 read with Section 109 IPC, and whether instigation can be by conduct rather than words? What constitutes a sufficient link between abetment and the act committed for murder, and whether motive or prior incidents alone can sustain a conviction? What is the role and admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing abetment or motive in a murder case?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the correct scope of abetment under Section 107 read with Section 109 IPC, and whether instigation can be by conduct rather than words?

What constitutes a sufficient link between abetment and the act committed for murder, and whether motive or prior incidents alone can sustain a conviction?

What is the role and admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing abetment or motive in a murder case?

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant who faced trial along with one Selvam was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The first accused Selvam was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court convicted first accused for having committed murder of Natarajan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) on the instigation of A-2 the present appellant.

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

On 12.10.1989, at about 5.00 p.m., when the first accused came to the house of the deceased and called the deceased. Gopi (PW-4) replied that the deceased had not returned from the day s work. Therefore, the first accused went away. The deceased returned home at about 6.00 p.m. At about 7.30 p.m. after taking food, the deceased was talking with his third wife, Neela and PW-4. At about 8.00 p.m. the first accused came again and requested the deceased to come out and when the deceased came out of the house, the first accused told him that he was having brandy and invited him for drinking brandy. He also showed a brandy bottle. Therefore, the dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1304

C.K.THAKKER, ARIJIT PASAYATRanganyaki – AppellantVersusState By Inspector Of Police – Respondent

What is the correct scope of abetment under Section 107 read with Section 109 IPC, and whether instigation can be by conduct rather than words?

What constitutes a sufficient link between abetment and the act committed for murder, and whether motive or prior incidents alone can sustain a conviction?

What is the role and admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing abetment or motive in a murder case?

Cases Referred (2)

C.K.THAKKER, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Ranganyaki – Appellant
Versus
State By Inspector Of Police – Respondent