NDLI: Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 226, 227 and 228 – Penal Code, 1860: 147, 302, 323, 354 & 451 – Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and laid an assault on the appellant and his family members and during the assault wife of the appellant succumbed to the injuries inflicted on her by the accused persons – Cause of death of the deceased in the post mortem report was “cardio respiratory failure” – Charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence of murder along with other offences – Trial court discharged the accused persons of the offence of murder and proceeded to frame charge for the offence of culpable homicide punishable u/s. 304 of the IPC – High Court affirmed the order of trial court discharging the accused persons of the offence of murder – On appeal, held: Trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office – The material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution – All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence – Whether the case falls under ss. 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could be decided only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record – At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record.Evidence Act, 1872: Evidentiary Value of Post Mortem Report – The post mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence – The post mortem report of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body – The doctor’s statement in court is alone the substantive evidence – The post mortem report can be used only to corroborate his statement under s. 157, or to refresh his memory under s. 159, or to contradict his statement in the witness box under s. 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 45 – Expert Opinion – The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to a conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert’s opinion because once the expert’s opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 750
Petitioner	Ghulam Hassan Beigh
Respondent	Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 13 S.C.R. 34
Judgement Date	2022-07-26
Case Number	1041

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Ram Deo Tyagi & Ors.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Serajuddin Vs. R. C. Mishra

Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tun Da and Ors.

M.narayandas Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.

Anshad and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Inder Mohan Chopra & Ors.

Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.

Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Ram Deo Tyagi & Ors.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Serajuddin Vs. R. C. Mishra

Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tun Da and Ors.

M.narayandas Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.

Anshad and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Inder Mohan Chopra & Ors.

Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.