NDLI: State of M.p. Vs. Ramesh and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860 - s. 302 and s. 302 rlw s. 1208 - Murder Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and s. 302 r/w s. 1208 - Murder Allegation that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 murdered the husband of respondent no.2 - Prosecution primarily relying upon testimony of PW1, the 8 year old minor daughter of respondent no. 2 and deceased - Conviction of respondents by trial court - Set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: Testimony of P. W. 1 is affirmed by the statements of other witnesses, proved circumstances and o medical evidence - Her deposition being precise, concise, specific and vivid without any improvement or embroidery is worth acceptance in toto - High Court completely ignored the most material incriminating circumstances which appeared against the respondents-accused - Findings recorded by High Court were contrary to the evidence on record and thus, were perverse - Judgement of the trial Court restored.Witness - Child witness - Evidence of - Appreciation - Held: Deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence - The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring - Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Scope -Held: The appellate court being the final court of fact is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision - Law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused - If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.Criminal jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence -Held: Every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.161(2); 313(3); and proviso (b) to s.315 - Rule against adverse inference from silence of the accused - Held: Statement of accused u/ s.313 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case . However, as such a statement is not recorded after administration of oath and the accused cannot be cross- examined, his statement so recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated to be evidence within the meaning of s. 3 of the Evidence Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(3) - Evidence Act, 1872.Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 6 - Admissibility of evidence under - Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 221
Petitioner	State Of M.p.
Respondent	Ramesh And Anr.
SCR	[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2011-03-18
Case Number	1289

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

State of M.p. Vs. Ramesh and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ramvilas Vs. State of M.p.

Raghavendra Sharma Vs. State of M.p.

Sobaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Jodhan Vs. State of M.p.

State of U.p. Vs. Chandrapal & Anr.

State of M.p Vs. Makhan @ Madan & Ors.

Paramsivam & Ors. Vs. State Through Inspector of Police

Mahmood and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Shashi Mohan Vs. State of M.p.

State of M.p. Vs. Ramesh and Anr.

State of M.p. Vs. Ramesh and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ramvilas Vs. State of M.p.

Raghavendra Sharma Vs. State of M.p.

Sobaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Jodhan Vs. State of M.p.

State of U.p. Vs. Chandrapal & Anr.

State of M.p Vs. Makhan @ Madan & Ors.

Paramsivam & Ors. Vs. State Through Inspector of Police

Mahmood and Anr. Vs. State of U.p.

Shashi Mohan Vs. State of M.p.

State of M.p. Vs. Ramesh and Anr.