NDLI: Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State By Ulsoor Ps

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 161 – Evidence Act – ss. 25, 27 – Murder of old aged person – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants were convicted u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by High Court – On appeal, held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion – However, in the present case this is clearly missing from the case of the prosecution – Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again on pointing out of the accused – Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself – Further, u/s. 25, Evidence Act , a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence – Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court wrongly placed reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements – Orders passed by Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellants be released from jail, unless wanted in some other crime. Criminal Law – Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Duty of Court – Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused – A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1322
Petitioner	Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc.
Respondent	State By Ulsoor Ps
SCR	[2022] 13 S.C.R. 415
Judgement Date	2022-09-30
Case Number	1597

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

Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State By Ulsoor Ps

Please Log-in to view this content

Krishna Govind Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Arjun and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Bhagat Etc. Vs. State of Bihar

State of Haryana Vs. Surender and Ors. Etc.

Abdul Razak & Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka Rep. By Sho, Hutti Ps

State Through Spe & Cbi, Ap Vs. M. Krishna Mohan and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi Etc.

Munuwa @ Satish Etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Harilal Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)

Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State By Ulsoor Ps

Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State By Ulsoor Ps

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Krishna Govind Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Arjun and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Bhagat Etc. Vs. State of Bihar

State of Haryana Vs. Surender and Ors. Etc.

Abdul Razak & Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka Rep. By Sho, Hutti Ps

State Through Spe & Cbi, Ap Vs. M. Krishna Mohan and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi Etc.

Munuwa @ Satish Etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Harilal Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)

Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State By Ulsoor Ps