Case Briefs for IPC Project

1. Chandru v. State (2019) 15 SCC 666

FACTS:
Three college students- Arun, Siva (Sivaprakash), and Chandru (Chandrashekhar)
travelled to Chennai on 30th October 2004. They were staying at a certain guest house.
Venki (Venkatesh) came and injected Arun with 4 ml of Tidijesic drug. Arun was
found dead the next morning. The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death
might be due to drug injection. There were three suspects- Venki, Siva, and Chandru.
Venki was the main suspect. A chargesheet was filed against Venki but he
unfortunately passed away before the commencement of the trial.
Arun’s maternal uncle later filed a private complaint alleging that Venki injected
Arun with Tidijesic drug at the invitation of Chandru. It was alleged that all three
were staying in the same room, and Chandru paid Rs. 50 to Venki for injecting the
drug to Arun. The complaint alleged that there was a love triangle between the
deceased Arun, Siva, and one of the witnesses. This was contended to be the motive
of the crime. It stated that Siva and the witness were in a relationship. Arun and the
witnesses were very close to each other. The complaint contended that Siva was
jealous that Arun and the witness were getting closer to each other. The complaint
stated that Siva contacted Chandru to get rid of Arun, and Chandru acquired the help
of Venki for the furtherance of the crime.
Trial Court convicted the accused for having committed an offense under Sections
302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.
Principles referred to by the Court:
 Circumstantial Evidence: Each circumstance has to be dealt with separately
and then linked together. The Courts considered circumstances like last seen
together, medical evidence, and motive.
 The prosecution was unable to prove successfully various circumstances that it
discussed. There was no evidence of any love triangle. The trip was
undertaken at the insistence of Arun and not the other two accused, which
disproves the fact that they wanted to kill Arun.
 Furthermore, there were procedural irregularities like delay in filing the
private complaint, and two of the Prosecution Witnesses were not impartial.
 Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – 19-30 years
ii. Age of the offender – 19-30 years
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 2
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – friends
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Love Triangle
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No of blow – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Drug overdose
xvi. Other relevant factors – unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – sentence based on circumstantial
evidence not pointing towards the guilt of the accused
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – unknown (N/A)
xix. Constructive liability – Criminal Conspiracy (s. 120 B)
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence – N/A

2. State of UP v Faquirey (2019) 5 SCC 605

FACTS:
There was a dispute between the complainant’s nephew and the respondent during a
panchayat session. The complainant’s son (Rakesh) went to the panchayat session,
where the respondent and his brother threatened to kill him before the dispute is
resolved. Rakesh tried to run away, but the accused took out a gun and shot Rakesh.
Rakesh succumbed to bullet injuries and passed away. It came to be known that the
accused had a grudge against Rakesh as he believed that Rakesh had an evil eye on
his wife. The accused was charged under Section 302, while his brother was charged
for offenses under Section 302 read with Section 34.
The trial court acquitted Santosh but sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 5000. On appeal by the accused, the High Court turned the accused’s
sentence from Section 302 to Exception I under Section 304. The High Court
observed that the accused lost self-control due to the intervention by Rakesh. This
intervention, according to the High Court, amounted to a grave and sudden
provocation, and therefore the accused will be liable under Exception I of Section
304. The High Court sentenced the accused to a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court relied on the
following principles to come to this decision:
 Exception I of Section 300 provides that culpable homicide is not murder if
the death is caused due to a grave and sudden provocation. Such provocation,
according to the Court, should be involuntary and overt.
 In this case, there was no overt act by Rakesh that could act as an involuntary
grave and sudden provocation. The facts of the case indicate that provocation
was voluntarily sought by the offender.
 The Court held the accused liable under Section 302 and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – acquaintances
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Firearm
xii. Nature of injury – unknown
 xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No of blow – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – unknown
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Grave and Sudden Provocation
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Culpable Homicide to Murder
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

3. Madan Mahto v State of Jharkhand (2019) 4 SCC 142

FACTS:
Four people were working in their paddy fields. The four accused arrived at their
paddy fields with sharp weapons and a gun. There was a property dispute between the
two factions. One of the accused (Madan) fired three gunshots. Three people who
were working fled, while one (Jitu) was captured by the four accused. Jitu’s right
palm was cut with a weapon, stoned on his head, and he eventually died. The four
were charged with the offense under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The Trial Court found the four liable under the above-mentioned sections and
sentenced all of them to life imprisonment. The four accused filed an appeal at the
High Court. The High Court dismissed their appeals and confirmed the Trial Court’s
decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the High Court’s decision.
The Court relied on the following principles to reach its decision:
 The Supreme Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section
136 of the Constitution, will not assess the evidence afresh. It will intervene if
it found irregularities in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts.
 It did not find any fault in the decision of the lower courts. Evidence given by
the witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence. It affirmed the decision
of the High Court.
 Since the attackers came together with lethal weapons to attack the four
people, a case of common intention under Section 34 was established.
 Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 4
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – unknown
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Property dispute
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury – unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No of blow – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – unknown
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Grave and Sudden Provocation
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Culpable Homicide to Murder
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

4. Bikash Bora v State of Assam (2019) 4 SCC 280

FACTS:
The deceased (Jugeswar) visited the house of Lakhiram. He left Lakhiram’s house at
night after having a meal. After Jugeswar departed, Lakhiram heard some noise of
chowkidars beating up some person. The chowkidars asked Lakhiram to bring some
water. He later noticed that Jugeswar was lying injured. Injured Jugeswar was then
carried to a tea estate by the six accused. He passed away in the garden in front of the
estate. A lathi was recovered by the police from one of the accused. The post-mortem
report revealed that Jugeswar died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by a blunt
weapon.
The Trial Court acquitted two of the six accused, and the rest were found liable under
Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The four filed an appeal
at the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court acquitted three of the four accused, while one (Dipankar Bora)
was convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It
relied on the following principles to reach its decision:
 There was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds between the four accused.
The fact that they were seen together by Lakhiram around the accused is no
evidence of common intention.
 Furthermore, there was no evidence that all four of them had beaten up
Jugeswar. Hence, they cannot be held liable under Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
 However, circumstances show that Dipankar Bora had assaulted Jugeswar.
This is corroborated by medical evidence and the retrieval of a lathi from his
house. He was found to be liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – unknown
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Firearm
xii. Nature of injury – Bullet injury
xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No. of blows – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Injury to a vital organ
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
 xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Evidence given by one of the
witnesses is not credible enough, and non-recovery of the weapon from the
accused.
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Intention
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defense
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

5. Pappi v State of Rajasthan (2019) 5 SCC 351

FACTS:
The deceased along with the informant were returning after visiting a Dargah. On
their way, they came across the accused. The accused were armed with sword. They
inflicted sword injuries on the deceased and threatened the informant not to interfere.
The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The 7 accused were charged with the
offences under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code. 5 of them were tried while the other two absconded.
The Trial Court convicted three of the accused. The three accused appealed to the
High Court. The High Court acquitted two of them, while Pappi’s conviction under
Section 302 stood. Pappi moved to the Supreme Court.
The accused argued that since all the other members have been acquitted, he should
be acquitted two. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s decision. While the
others got the benefit of doubt, there was clinching evidence to show that the injuries
were inflicted by the accused.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – 19
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – unknown
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
 x. Source of weapon – unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp weapon (sword)
xii. Nature of injury – Incised wounds
xiii. Number of injuries - 67
xiv. No. of blows – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Acquittal on the grounds that others have been
acquitted.
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – N/A
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

6. Kalua v State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 683

FACTS:
A person, Lakhan, was inspecting the work of safai karmacharis at a market. Lakhan
was surrounded by the five accused armed with weapons. Two of the accused fired
shots aimed at Lakhan. Lakhan suffered abdominal injuries as a result and ultimately
succumbed to the injuries and passed away. The five were charged with an offense
under Section 302 read with Section 34 under the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court held three of them to be liable under the relevant sections, while the
other two were acquitted. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. It
relied on the following principles to reach the decision:
 If the evidence given by the witnesses is credible, it cannot be discredited by
the fact that the witness has been convicted in a criminal case.
 Non-recovery of weapons from the accused will not materially affect the
prosecution’s case if other evidence points towards the guilt of the accused.

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – Unknown
 ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 4
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – unknown
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Blunt Weapon like a stick
xii. Nature of injury – Abrasion and bruises
xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No. of blows – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Circumstantial evidence does not point
towards the guilt of the accused
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Intention
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defense
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence –Life Imprisonment

7. Satya Raj Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 3 SCC 615

FACTS:
Four people- Narendra, Rajendra, Prabhu, and Mahendra were chatting. One Santosh
approached Prabhu, to talk with him. After chatting with Santosh, Prabhu told
Narendra that he had something important to share with him. Rajendra and Mahendra
left to buy certain things. On their way, they saw Satya Raj Singh (the accused)
assaulting Narendra with a knife. Prabhu and Santosh stood by the side, witnessing
the event. Three of them were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The trial court acquitted two of the accused. Satya Pal Singh, on the other hand, was
sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The
 convict filed an appeal at the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and convicted the accused to life
imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It observed that the delay
in filing the FIR did not make the prosecution’s defence weak, as other evidence
proved the prosecution’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – unknown
vii. Background of the offender – unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - unknown
xiv. No. of blows – unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Procedural irregularities
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defense
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence –Life Imprisonment

8. Chakarai v State (2019) 14 SCC 254

FACTS:
Ramamurthy (the deceased) worked for a bank in Salem. He had, on behalf of the
bank, authorised a loan to the two accused to purchase two motorcycles. Ramamurthy
pressurised the two accused to repay the loan. Six months after the loan was given,
Ramamurthy seized the motorcycles on account of repayment of the loan. He refused
to return the motorcycles till the loan was repaid. On a certain day, the two accused
called Ramamurthy to a certain place, promising to repay the loan. Ramamurthy was
pushed into a van as soon as he reached the place. He was killed, and his body was
thrown near the house of an advocate.
The trial court convicted one of the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. It relied on the principle that a person
cannot be convicted to life imprisonment solely on an extra-judicial confession.
Furthermore, the witnesses did not act in an impartial manner, and hence, their
evidence cannot be considered to be credible enough.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Unknown
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Unknown
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Conviction based on an extra-judicial
confession
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defense
 xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence –Acquittal
9. Dev Wati v State of Haryana (2019) 4 SCC 329
FACTS;
The three accused were booked under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The victim had a serious dispute with his wife. The accused, who are the
relatives of the wives, called the victim to solve the matrimonial dispute. The victim
was later killed.
The Supreme Court ordered the Sessions Court to decide the case on merits as there
were procedural irregualrities.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Prior Criminal History (Undertrial)
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Unknown
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Unknown
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – N/A
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Order to Sessions Court to decide
the case on merits as there were procedural irregularities
xxii. Sentence –Acquittal
10. Raju Gangekar v State of Maharashtra (2020) 12 SCC 591
FACTS:
Two people were staying at a hotel in New Delhi. The two had an argument with the
manager (the accused) of the hotel. It is alleged that the accused put chili powder on
the two visitors. The visitors tried to run away from the hotel. The four accused,
according to a police constable who was patrolling that area, chased the two visitors.
The accused assaulted one of them with a gupti (sharp weapon). The four accused
were charged with an offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The trial court acquitted all four of the accused. High Court acquitted three of them
while convicting one under Section 304 Part II. The convicted file an appeal before
the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court. The Court sentenced
the appellant to imprisonment for 5 years. The defence counsel argued that there were
procedural irregularities. The Court found out that the evidence produced by the
prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Stranger
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the Spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
 xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Procedural irregularities
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Imprisonment for 5 years.

11. Malaichamy v State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 17 SCC 568

FACTS:
The complainant’s son was murdered by the three accused. The paternal Uncle(P) of
the Accused had kept a certain amount of money at the complainant’s house. P’s son
was in a relationship with the complainant’s cousin, but the complainant’s family
refused. P also requested the complainant to be a partner in a liquor business. Accused
2 was employed in a fair-price shop. He was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct.
P requested the complainant to intervene, but he refused. Having a grudge against the
complainant, the three accused grouped together and killed the complainant’s son.
Two knives were recovered from the accused. They were charged with offences under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court convicted the three of them to life imprisonment. The High Court
affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court acquitted all three of them. The Court found the motive to be
shaky. The relationship of P’s son and the custody of money does not affect the
accused. The Court found the third motive unconvincing. There were procedural
irregularities in the way in which the knives were recovered. Furthermore, the
testimony given by the witness was delayed by a week, and one of the witnesses made
contradictory statements. This weakened the prosecution’s case

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – 17 (Under 18)
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
 vii. Background of the offender – Unknown [not mentioned]
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the Spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Procedural irregularities
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

12. Basavraj v State of Karnataka (2020) 15 SCC 310

FACTS:
The complainant was watching the television in his shed with another person (C). C
left for his shed at around 11 in the night with the intention to go and sleep in his bed.
The complainant then heard a commotion. When he got out, he saw C lying in a pool
of blood. A nearby shed was set ablaze, where he saw an injured woman lying with
her two sons by her side. He saw three Telugu speaking people in vests and shorts
leaving. The three were booked for offences under Sections 302 and 120B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
One of the accused was sentenced to death by the Trial Court. The High Court
affirmed the Trial Court’s decision. The accused filed an appeal in the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment instead of death
sentence. Although the weapon was recovered from the accused, it considered other
circumstances. The Court justified its decision stating that a person cannot be
sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence. two of the primary witnesses
were the complainant himself and the injured mother. The evidence of these two
 people is doubtful because: (a) it found that the complainant had identified the
accused based on the advice given to him by the police. The advice given by the
police created a lasting impact on him as he was a daily wage earner, and (b) the
mother was in a state of shock after the loss of her sons and injuries and her
identification of the accused requires a closer look. Furthermore, charges against the
co-accused failed and hence modification of sentence was required.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 3
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury –Incised and Lacerated wounds
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Injury to vital organs
xvi. Other relevant factors – Shock
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Conviction relied on circumstantial
evidence
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

13. Nawaz v State (2019) 3 SCC 517

FACTS:
The wife of the deceased had an extra-marital affair with Nawaz. The husband
suspected the wife’s infidelity and believed that Nawaz had a relationship with his
elder daughter too. One day, he called his wife a prostitute. Nawaz, who was
downstairs, asked the husband not to argue with his wife. The husband became angry
and slapped Nawaz. Nawaz and the wife strangulated the husband and burnt his body.
Both of them were charged with offenses under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court held the two liable under the above-mentioned Sections. The High
Court confirmed the convictions and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court modified the sentence of the two and converted it to a rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years. The Court stated that calling a woman a prostitute is
something no woman would like to hear, and it amounted to a grave and sudden
provocation. Therefore, they were liable under Section 304 Part II and not 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 2
v. Relationship between the victim & offender –Family Member and Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Sudden Fight
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon like a knife
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Choked to death
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Grave and sudden provocation
xix. Constructive liability – Common intention
 xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Murder to Culpable Homicide
xxii. Sentence – Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years

14. State of Tamil Nadu v PV Bharaathi (2019) 18 SCC 71

Order relating to releasing of a prisoner convicted under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.

15. Nand Kishore v State of MP (2019) 16 SCC 278

An 8-year-old girl had gone to a mela with her brother. A 50-year-old man took the
girl away from the mela to a lonely place. He raped and murdered the girl. The father
lodged a complaint with the police. The headless body of the daughter was recovered
with both her legs fractured. Severe injuries were inflicted on the girl’s private parts.
Bloodstained clothes and articles were recovered from the accused’s house. He was
charged with offences under Sections 302, 363, 366, and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal
Code.
The trial court convicted the accused to a death sentence. The High Court confirmed
the sentence of the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court converted the sentence to life imprisonment. A person can be
sentenced to death if the case fell within the “rarest of rare cases”. The Court stated
that the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence. A person cannot be
sentenced to death solely on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, there was nothing
on record to suggest that the person cannot be reformed. As a result, this case did not
fall within the purview of the rarest of rare cases.

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – Under 18 (8 years old)
ii. Age of the offender – 41-50 (50 years old)
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Sexual Gratification
 ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Injury to vital organs
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – The case did not fall under the
purview of the rarest of rare cases.
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

16. Yogendra v State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 9 SCC 243

FACTS:
The accused liked a woman named Ruby, who was married and had two children. The
woman had gone to live with her maternal uncle. One summer night, the family was
sleeping with doors open. The accused entered their house and threatened Ruby. The
woman started screaming, which woke up other members of the house. While they
were going to save her, the accused threw acid on Ruby. Ruby suffered 90% burns
and ultimately died. The accused was charged with an offence under Sections 302,
326A, and 460 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death sentence. The High Court confirmed
the Trial Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court converted the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court
stated that there should be special reasons for sentencing a person to death. Life
Imprisonment is the rule, and death sentence is an exception. There should be
something terribly uncommon about the crime. This case is not an example of cold-
blooded pre-planned murder, which would have been something uncommon. The
Supreme Court believed that the accused might have intended to cause only serious
 injuries and not death but the attack might have become more serious than previously
thought of.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Prior Criminal History
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Burn
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Acid Burn
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – The case did not fall under the
purview of the rarest of rare cases.
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

17. Raju Jagdish Paswan v State of Maharashtra (2019) 16 SCC 380

FACTS:
A 9-year-old-girl went missing after she did not return home from school. The father
enquired the school teacher of the whereabouts of his girl. The teacher informed him
that she did not come to school that day. On further investigation it was found that the
girl was taken to a sugarcane field by the accused. The police apprehended the
accused, who initially denied any wrongdoing. When interrogated further, he
confessed that he took the girl to the sugarcane field, raped her, and threw the body
into a well. The police later recovered the body from the well. The post-mortem report
revealed that the girl died due to drowning. The accused was charged with offences
under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced the accused to death. This was confirmed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court converted the sentence to Life Imprisonment for 30 years.
Considering the age of the offender, lack of criminal tendencies, no record to show
that he cannot be reformed and other mitigating factors, it found that the case did not
fall within the purview of rarest of rare cases.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – 9 (Under 18)
ii. Age of the offender – 22 (22-30)
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – No Prior Criminal History
viii. Motive of the crime – Sexual Gratification
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Unknown
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Drowning
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – The case did not fall under the
purview of the rarest of rare cases.
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
 xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

18. Sudhir Kumar v State of Haryana (2019) 14 SCC 387

FACTS:
There was an altercation between the complainant’s mother and his aunt. The
accused, in support of his aunt, started pelting bricks at the complainant’s house. The
next day when the complainant’s mother went to fetch water, she was threatened by
the nine accused. The nine accused threatened the complainant’s brother, who ran
away from the shop he is running. The accused then entered the complainant’s house
and assaulted the complainant’s father with various weapons.
Two of the accused were tried and convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302,
148, 506, and 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court
found the accused to be liable under Section 304 Part I and not 302. Their sentences
were reduced to the period already gone by them. The complainant, unhappy with the
decision, filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal regarding one of the accused and him to life
imprisonment under Section 302. The Supreme Court found that the injuries inflicted
by the accused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This
clearly showed the intention of the accused. The crime is not covered by any
exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the High Court regarding the other accused.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp Weapon
 xii. Nature of injury – Stab Injury
xiii. Number of injuries - 8
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Injury to vital organs
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Sudden Fight
xix. Constructive liability – Common object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment + Fine

19. Ashish Jain v Makrand Singh (2019) 3 SCC 770

FACTS:
The complainant found his uncle’s house locked from outside. Growing suspicious,
he called the police. The police on breaking the door, found three dead bodies. Certain
electrical equipments were found in the house. Three electricians were last seen going
to the house according to a shopkeeper near to their house. Silver and Gold ornaments
were stolen from the house. Based on the identification by the shopkeeper and the
recovery of incriminating articles, the three accused were arrested.
The Trial Court sentenced all the accused to death. The High Court acquitted all three
of them. The State filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to argue for the respondents. He
argued that there were various discrepancies in the evidence and the recoveries.
Confessions and recoveries were not voluntary but induced by pressure and coercion.
This is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution failed to establish
the chain of events too. The prosecution also failed to establish that the articles seized
could not be tampered with. As a result, Court acquitted all of them.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 3
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
 vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used –Blunt Weapon
xii. Nature of injury – Lacerated wounds
xiii. Number of injuries – 5 for each victim
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Procedural Irregularities
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Intention
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

20. Santosh Mane v State of Maharashtra (2019) 19 SCC 797

FACTS:
Santosh Mane worked as a driver for the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation.
He requested the Assistant Traffic Controller to change his duty from night out to
single day duty. His request was declined. He took the keys and entered into the ST
Bus. He drove the bus in a circular manner for two rounds and killed nine people. He
was charged with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced the accused to death sentence. This was affirmed by the
High Court. The accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. He argued that he
should be given the benefit of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. He
produced medical evidence given by three general physicians and one psychiatrist
declaring him to be of unsound mind.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to life
imprisonment. The Supreme Court believed that the medical evidence produced was
 not sufficient enough to show the conduct of the accused prior to the incident, during
the incident and to show whether he was aware of what he was doing during the
incident. The Court converted the sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds that
the accused did not have prior criminal history nor did he have criminal tendencies as
his behaviour in jail was good.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 9 (5 or more)
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Stranger
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – No prior criminal history
viii. Motive of the crime – Other
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Insanity
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – The case did not fall under the
purview of the rarest of rare cases.
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor + General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

21. Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan (2019) 19 SCC 447

FACTS:
The deceased had gone to another village to meet one of the accused for business
purposes and did not return. The accused and the victim had several altercations
between them regarding their business. One day, one of the witnesses saw the accused
taking a drum out from the go down but the drum was not returned to the go-down.
On being asked by the witness, the accused replied that it would be returned later. The
police started its investigation and found the deceased’s body in a dry well. The four
accused were charged with the offences under Sections 302 and 120 B of the Indian
Penal Code.
The Trial Court acquitted two of them. The two accused appealed to the High Court.
The High Court confirmed their conviction.
The Supreme Court acquitted two of them. The Court stated that the circumstantial
evidence could not establish the chain of circumstances. The charges could not be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 2
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Unknown
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Circumstantial evidence did not establish the
chain of events
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Criminal Conspiracy
 xx. Defence accepted by the court- General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

22. Mahadevappa v State of Karnataka (2019) 18 SCC 561

FACTS:
The deceased is the wife of a Constable in Bagalkot, a district in Karnataka. One day,
wife’s father came to know that the deceased is admitted to the District Hospital and
is in a critical condition. The father went to the hospital and asked his daughter as to
what happened. She replied saying that her husband put kerosene on her and set her
on fire. As a result, she suffered burns. She ultimately succumbed to injuries. The
accused, it was found out used to harass and ill-treat his wife. He threatened her for
not bringing enough money from her parental house. The accused was charged with
offences Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Sessions Court acquitted the accused. On an appeal by the State, the High Court
convicted the accused as the Sessions Court had failed to appreciate the evidence
properly.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court. The accused argued
that it was an accidental death. The accused contended that her nylon saree came in
contact with fire and as a result suffered burns. The Supreme Court, however, found
incriminating evidence like the presence of the accused at the time of the incident,
presence of a bottle of kerosene, presence of kerosene in her body, and the disputes
between the accused and the deceased. This pointed towards the guilt of the accused.
The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Family Member
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Matrimonial Dispute
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a Weapon
 x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – Burns
xiii. Number of injuries - Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Burns due to kerosene
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Accident
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – N/A
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

23. Gupteshwar Behera v State of Odisha (2019) 15 SCC 511

FACTS:
Pradeep was informed by a certain person that his brother was seriously injured and
lying in a pool of blood on the road. Pradeep immediately reached the place. His
brother named the six accused as who had murdered him with sticks, knives, and axe.
He confessed to the police officer in the van as to who killed him. He passed away
before he reached the hospital. The post-mortem report revealed that he passed away
due to shock and excessive loss of blood. The report also revealed several incise
injuries. The six were charged with offences under Sections 302 and 148 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court held all the six of them guilty. Three of the accused passed away
when the appeal was filed at the High Court. The High Court acquitted one of the
remaining three accused while sentencing the other two to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court acquitted the remaining two accused. The appellants were entitled
to benefit of doubt. The medical report revealed that the victim after receiving the
blows did not survive more than ten minutes. The brother reached the crime scene
nearly fifteen minutes later. The Court believed that it was not possible for the victim
to make separate statements to the police and the brother.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
 ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 2
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender –Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime –Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp weapon (knife and axe) and blunt weapon (lathi)
xii. Nature of injury – Incised wounds
xiii. Number of injuries – 14 (10+)
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive loss of blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Benefit of doubt in light of contradictory
evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

24. Deepu v State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 2 SCC 393

Order regarding procedural grounds of a case.

25. Ballu v State of of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 14 SCC 573

FACTS:
Accused was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The accused filed an appeal at
the Supreme Court claiming that he was a minor at the time of commission of the
offence. The Supreme Court after looking into the age of the accused found out that
the accused was a minor when he committed the offence. The Court found him to be
 liable Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The maximum time period of custody
under this Act is 3 years while the accused had been under custody for over 4 years.
The accused, as a result, was acquitted.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender –Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime –Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Unknown
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Unknown
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries – Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Infancy
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Acquitted
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

26. MA Antony v State of Kerala (2019) 17 SCC 751

FACTS:
The accused wanted to move to the Gulf and was in dire need of money to do so. The
accused wanted the money from the deceased family but the family refused. The
accused hatched a plan and murdered all the six members of the family in one night.
At first, he murdered two of them who were present in the house. The rest of the
family had gone to watch a movie. When they returned home, the rest of them were
killed too. The accused used knives and axe to kill some of the members, some were
electrocuted, and some were strangulated to death.
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death. The High Court confirmed the Trial
Court’s decision. The High Court observed that the accused had acted mercilessly,
and the only option was to sentence him to death.
The Supreme Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. It considered
the socio-economic strata to which the accused belonged to. The accused, the Court
believed, committed the crime under tremendous economic pressure. The Court also
disagreed with the Trial Court on the ground that public conscience had been shaken
by this case. In light of these mitigating factors, the Supreme Court convicted the
accused to Life Imprisonment.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Multiple
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 6
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender –Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime –Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp weapons like Knife, axe
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries – Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Strangulation and Electrocution for some, Unknown for others
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Socio-economic factors
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
 xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

27. Wasnik v State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460

FACTS:
Th accused raped a 3-year-old girl. He was booked under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), and
377 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death, which was confirmed by the High
Court. The accused filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. It considered
various mitigating circumstance- conviction was based on circumstantial evidence,
possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused, and the lack of DNA evidence
regarding rape. The Court stated that the case did not fall within the ambit of rarest of
rare case.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – 3 years (Under 18)
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Unknown
vi. Background of the victim – No prior criminal history
vii. Background of the offender –Prior criminal history
viii. Motive of the crime –Sexual Gratification
ix. Involvement of weapon – Unknown
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Unknown
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries – Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
 xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, lack of DNA Evidence regarding rape, possibility of rehabilitation and
reformation
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court –Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

28. Amol Kadu v State of Maharashtra

Order relating to providing compensation to the prisoner who had an unnatural death
in police lock-up

29. State of UP v Wasif Haider

FACTS:
A group of 200-300 people was rioting at the Chaubey Gola Temple. Police and
armed forces proceeded to the place to control the situation. The rioters started firing
and one of the bullets hit the deceased. The deceased subsequently succumbed to the
bullet injuries. The four accused were arrested and produced in the Test Identification
Parade, where they were identified. Among them, Wasif Haider was tried and
convicted under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court convicted the accused to life imprisonment. The High Court has
acquitted the accused. The State of UP filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to various reasons. The prosecution
failed to prove that the bullet was fired by the accused. It also failed to ascertain the
exact place where the crime occurred and could not produce an independent witness.
There was a contradiction between the place where the bullet was recovered and the
place of injury (as argued by the prosecution). Therefore, the prosecution could not
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Parameters of the case:

i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
 iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Stranger
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender –Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime –Rioting
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Firearm
xii. Nature of injury – Bullet injury
xiii. Number of injuries – 2
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Contradictions in the evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Acquitted
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

30. Subhash Jadhav v State of Maharashtra (2019) 16 SCC 728

FACTS:
Two people were working in the night shift at a company. The deceased was serving
tea to everybody working. A quarrel broke out between the two. The accused brought
an axe and killed the victim. The accused was charged with an offense under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. The High Court
confirmed the Trial Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement. It stated that there was no
planning or intention prior to the commission of the offence. The accused committed
it at the spur of the moment. As a result, the Court found the accused to be liable
under Section 304 Part I and not Section 302. It changed the sentence from life
imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already gone by the accused.
 Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Friends
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender –Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime –Unknown
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a Weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Sharp weapon (axe)
xii. Nature of injury – Unknown
xiii. Number of injuries – Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – Unknown
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – N/A
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Sudden fight
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Murder to Culpable Homicide
xxii. Sentence – Imprisonment for the time period already gone by him

31. Viran Rajput v State of Maharashtra (2019) 2 SCC 311

FACTS:
The victim was a nine-year-old schoolgirl. She went to and returned from school all
alone. One day, she went missing. Her father lodged a complaint with the police. The
victim’s uncle remembered seeing the accused following her. This was confirmed by
other villagers, who apprehended the accused. Later that day, the dead naked body,
along with the clothes, were recovered from a nearby field. The police recovered
mud-stained clothes from the accused, which matched with mud from the place where
the body was recovered. The post-mortem report revealed that the girl was raped and
strangulated to death. She passed away due to asphyxia and cardiac arrest. The
accused was charged with an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
relevant sections of the POCSO Act.
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death sentence. The High Court confirmed
the sentence.
The Supreme Court confirmed the sentence but modified it to life imprisonment. The
Court observed that the contradictions and the discrepancies in the evidence and
investigation are minor in nature. The circumstances, the medical evidence, and the
matching of the mud stains clearly point to the guilt of the accused. However, the
accused did not deserve death sentence as there was nothing on record to show that
the accused could not be reformed. Furthermore, the accused was young person.
Considering these factors, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – 9 (Under 18)
ii. Age of the offender – 22 (22-30)
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 1
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Stranger
vi. Background of the victim – No prior criminal history
vii. Background of the offender – No prior criminal history
viii. Motive of the crime – Sexual Gratification
ix. Involvement of weapon – Absence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – N/A
xii. Nature of injury – N/A
xiii. Number of injuries – N/A
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Asphyxia
xvi. Other relevant factors – Cardiac Arrest
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Discrepancies in the evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – Young age, no prior criminal history
xix. Constructive liability – N/A
xx. Defence accepted by the court – Mitigating Factor
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Death Sentence to Life
Imprisonment
 xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

32. Surendra Singh v State of Uttarakhand (2019) 15 SCC 808

FACTS:
The deceased used to meet one of the accused regularly. However, he stopped visiting
the accused once he came to know that the accused is involved in an illegal business.
The accused threatened the victim with dire consequences if he stopped meeting him.
After having dinner one night, the victim went to his shop with the intention of
sleeping there overnight. At midnight, the shop was found to be unlocked with the
victim and several articles missing. The body was found the next morning. The post-
mortem report revealed various lacerated and incise injuries on the body. It was
suspected that the injuries were inflicted by the wheel Panna of the car that they used
for the commission of the offense. Various articles were recovered from the three
accused, including blood-stained clothes. The three accused were booked under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
All three were convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to Life Imprisonment. The
High Court confirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court, too, confirmed the conviction. The Court found the chain of
events proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No perversity or illegality
in reasoning was found in the lower court’s decision.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Friend/Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – N/A
xi. Nature of weapon used – Blunt weapon (wheel panna)
xii. Nature of injury – Incised and Lacerated wounds
xiii. Number of injuries – 9
 xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Shock
xvi. Other relevant factors – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Discrepancies in the evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Unchanged
xxii. Sentence – Life Imprisonment

33. Mohd. Akhtar v State of Bihar (2019) 2 SCC 513

FACTS:
The deceased, along with his brother, had gone to another person’s house to collect
irrigation dues. While they were chatting, across the fireplace, a mob of 10-11, people
came armed with firearms. While they were trying to escape, the mob shot down the
deceased. 7 of them were booked under Sections 148, and 302 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the grounds of untrustworthy eye-witnesses,
absence of independent witnesses, improper investigation, and improbability of
identifying the accused. The High Court convicted the accused as it believed that
there were minor discrepancies in the evidence which can be rejected.
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused. It stated that there were no substantial and
compelling reasons to interfere with the decision of acquittal by the Trial Court. The
Supreme Court found the reasons given by the Trial Court to be compelling enough to
acquit the accused.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
 ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Firearm
xii. Nature of injury – Bullet injury
xiii. Number of injuries – 2
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Excessive Loss of Blood
xvi. Other relevant factors – N/A
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Discrepancies in the evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – General Defence
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal

34. Farida Begum v State of Uttarakhand (2019) 2 SCC 440

FACTS:
The deceased used to regularly visit the house of one Dildar for namaz. One day, he
was visiting Dildar. Suddenly, Farida Begum, accompanied with other accused
entered the house. The complainant objected. The deceased and the accused had
enmity in municipality politics. The deceased was caught hold off by his legs and
hands. To this, one of the accused fired three times, two of the bullets hitting the
deceased. Farida Begum, the chairman of the Nagar Pallika, threatened other
witnesses present by saying that whoever informs the police about the murder or
supports the no-confidence motion against her shall be killed. Firearms and other
incriminating material were recovered from the accused. The 7 accused were charged
under offences of Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code.
The Trial Court convicted all of them. One of the accused passed away. The rest
appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction of four of them,
while acquitting the other two. Three of them appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court convicted two of the accused, while third accused was given a
benefit of doubt. Regarding the first two, the Court opined that there was enough
 evidence to prove their role and presence at the place of crime. Although Section 149
can be invoked when there are 5 or more persons, charges under Section 149 were not
dropped against the two convicts. Acquittal of the other five was on the grounds of
benefit of doubt. This did not prove that they were not in the crime scene. All 7
entered with a common object, hence charges sustained against the two.
Parameters of the case:
i. Age of the victim – Unknown
ii. Age of the offender – Unknown
iii. No. of victims – 1
iv. No. of offenders – 3
v. Relationship between the victim & offender – Acquaintance
vi. Background of the victim – Unknown
vii. Background of the offender – Unknown
viii. Motive of the crime – Revenge
ix. Involvement of weapon – Presence of a weapon
x. Source of weapon – Carried to the spot
xi. Nature of weapon used – Firearm
xii. Nature of injury – Bullet injury
xiii. Number of injuries – Unknown
xiv. No. of blows – Unknown
xv. Cause of death – Unknown
xvi. Other relevant factors – N/A
xvii. Defence pleaded by the accused – Discrepancies in the evidence
xviii. Mitigating factor pleaded by the accused – N/A
xix. Constructive liability – Common Object
xx. Defence accepted by the court – N/A
xxi. Outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court – Conviction to Acquittal for one,
unchanged for two
xxii. Sentence – Acquittal for one, life imprisonment for two

35. KB Nayak v State of Gujarat (2019) 2 SCC 596

Order remanding the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the case afresh on
merits in accordance with law.