SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Guj) 500

J.N.BHATT, J.R.VORA
KANTILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.J.SETHNA, K.P.RAVAL

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) PARADOXICALLY, unfateful that day of 8. 4. 1994, for one helpless old widow in the December days of Life, Kantaben, unfortunately, alone residing in a house in Mangalsmurti Bungalow, behind Arunodaya Society, Modasa, turned out to be an "amangal" day (Inauspicious-day), and a Sunset of the life, while being in "arunodaya" (Sun-rising) society as she became a victim of heinous and heartless, horrible and horrendous Homicide for motive and that too pecuniary gain and Appellant was charged accordingly and prosecution case is accepted by Trial Court and he has been held guilty for her murder, robbery of ornaments and also for causing disappearance of evidence of murder. In view of challenge against the verdict of Trial Court, the first question would emerge as to whether the death of Kantaben was suicidal, homicidal or accidental? If homicidal, whether the appellant accused Kantilal Gordhandas Soni @ K. Lal, is the author of it, or not, are the grave questions, which have come up for our consideration and adjudication, in this conviction Appeal, u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.), against the judgment and order of conviction, recorded i






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top