SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 714

H.K.SEMA, B.N.AGARWAL
N. J. SURAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant herein was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences rendered were to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court of Madras upheld the convictions. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Undisputedly, in the present case, there is no direct evidence and this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has alleged two circumstances against the accused. The first circumstance is that the accused was last seen with the deceased in the hotel where in a room the dead body of the victim was recovered. The prosecution has attempted to prove this circumstance by the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9. The appellant was put to the test identification parade where these witnesses are said to have identified the appellant, but in their evidence they admitted that the photograph of the accused was shown to them before holding the test identification parade. In view of the fact that th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top