M. M. SUNDRESH
Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. motive and societal pressures can lead to criminal conspiracies. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court addresses underlying social issues influencing crime. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding witnesses' credibility and evidence reliability are crucial. (Para 34 , 41 , 43 , 46) |
| 4. circumstantial evidence and motive substantiated through indirect communication. (Para 49 , 66) |
| 5. the verdict emphasizes accountability in light of societal constraints. (Para 95 , 101 , 102 , 104) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others.
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, and Mr. R. Nedumaran appearing for the appellants, and learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tomy Sebastian appearing for the respondents, at considerable length. In the process, all the documents placed on record along with the writte
Maru Ram v. Union of India and Ors.
Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
Sudershan Kumar v. State of H.P.
Gireesan Nair and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay
Manzoor v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Sahabuddin and Another v. State of Assam
Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra
Rajesh Yadav and Anr. V. State of U.P.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.