Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA
Manohar Keshavrao Khandate – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. The accused-appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati1[Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”], in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2006, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, with the allegation that he committed the murder of his own wife Smt. Ranjana.
2. The trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 14th August, 2007, convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2007 preferred by the accused-appellant against his conviction stands rejected by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench2[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”], vide
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused to provide a credible defense.
The testimony of a child witness can suffice for conviction if credible and corroborated, while the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish an alibi.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, rejecting claims of accidental death.
The conviction based solely on a child's testimony is insufficient if discrepancies undermine its reliability, necessitating corroborative evidence.
The conviction can be based on the reliable testimony of a child witness if corroborated by medical evidence, and courts are to assess the competency of child witnesses carefully.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act lies with the accused to provide a convincing explanation for circumstances within their knowledge, and the court may draw an adverse inferen....
The credibility of a child witness and the need for corroboration in the absence of independent evidence.
The court upheld the conviction of a mother for murdering her three children, emphasizing the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
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