Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Wadla Bheemaraidu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2016 preferred by the appellant and affirming the judgment dated 13th October, 2016 rendered by the Family Court-cum-VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’.].
2. Eight accused persons were put up for trial. The appellant (A1) and two co-accused (A2 and A3) were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’.], whereas the remaining co-accused (A4-A8) were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 109 IPC.
3. Vide judgment dated 13th October, 2016, the trial Court acquitted A4 to A8 of all the charges. The appellant (A1) and the two co-accused (A2 and A3) were convicted and sentenced as below:
(ii) Section 364 IPC: Rigorous Imp
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" that suggest such treatment in the provided descriptions. Therefore, based on the information available, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed]
None explicitly indicated. The descriptions do not mention subsequent judicial treatment that affirms or follows these cases.
[Distinguished or Cited]
The descriptions do not specify whether these cases have been distinguished or cited in later judgments.
[Criticized or Questioned]
No indication that either case has been criticized or questioned in subsequent decisions.
[Uncertain treatment]
Both cases are described with detailed legal principles but lack information about their subsequent treatment in case law, making their judicial standing uncertain. They appear to be foundational or settled principles, but without explicit treatment details, their current authoritative status cannot be confirmed.
Summary:
Both cases seem to be substantive legal principles related to evidence law, but there's no explicit information on their subsequent judicial treatment. They are best categorized as having an uncertain treatment status based on the data provided.
Case Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar VS State Of Karnataka - 2024 4 Supreme 10: The treatment of this case in later jurisprudence is not specified. It discusses the admissibility of confessional statements but does not indicate whether it has been overruled or upheld.
Case Darshan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 2024 1 Supreme 45: Similarly, this case addresses witness credibility and proof of facts but lacks information on subsequent judicial treatment or whether it has been questioned or overruled.
Both cases require further research to determine their current legal standing, as the provided descriptions do not clarify their treatment in subsequent case law.
(1) Murder – DNA profiling report pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused in view of contra evidence of Medical Officer.(2) Disclosure stateme....
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires credible proof and a complete chain of circumstances; failure to establish these leads to acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt unless it excludes every possible hypothesis e....
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable without a complete chain of evidence, and undue delay in handling forensic samples raises integrity concerns.
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Circumstance of “last seen together” does not by itself and necessarily lead to inference that it was accused who committed crime.(2) Disclosure Statement – Information....
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
