Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIA
Shyam Kali Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The appellant along with her husband was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [the ‘IPC’] and sentenced to life imprisonment. The allegation was that the couple beat the deceased with sticks/lathi/danda in the premises of a temple and the victim succumbed to the injuries sustained. The motive was said to be an altercation that occurred in the afternoon when the appellant attempted to graze her cattle in the field of the deceased. The objection of the deceased regarding the land having not been harvested was ignored, upon which the deceased pushed the appellant, who fell down and then took a stick from her son and beat the deceased, twice on his leg. The appellant’s son and mother-in-law took her away from the scene of occurrence upon which the appellant warned the deceased that she will come back with her husband. The threat levelled was then executed, which led to the deat
Accused entitled to benefit of doubt in murder conviction due to inconsistencies in evidence and lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances of death, leading to acquittal.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
(1) Murder and hurt – Merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to be interested, especially in a case where there is ocular testimony – Motive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon –....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on reliable testimony and a dying declaration while acquitting the appellant of trespass due to co-ownership of property, emphasizing the admissibilit....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must establish clear links and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the reliability of dying declarations is paramount.
The appellant's conviction for murder was upheld as he failed to provide a credible defense, shifting the burden of proof to him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
An acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court must not disturb findings unless clear error is established.
The appellate court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating the appellant's acquittal from murder charges.
Circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
(1) Murder – Merely being an interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony – However, evidence of such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspec....
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
Listen Article