Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 26

T.S.THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
RISHIPAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!) - Point 5 (!) - Point 6 (!) - Point 7 (!) - Point 8 (!) - Point 9 (!)

Question 1?

What is the role and sufficiency of motive in circumstantial evidence-based murder cases?

Question 2?

What are the limits of the "last seen together" theory in proving murder under circumstantial evidence?

Question 3?

What constitutes adequate corpus delicti when the dead body is not recovered in murder prosecutions?

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.:-

This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital whereby Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2001 filed by the appellant has been partly allowed. The High Court has while setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC upheld his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 171, 201 and 420 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial Court for these offences. The High Court has further convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on that count.

2. The facts giving rise to the arrest and eventual conviction of the appellant have been set out by the High Court at length. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the same over again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that the appellant according to the prosecution dishonestly induced the complainant Dr. Mohd. Alam (P.W.2) at Dehradun to deliver his car bearing registration No.URM 2348 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- and at about 1.30 p.m.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document