NDLI: State of U. P. Vs. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860:s.302/34 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Shrieks of victim heard in the night by police party on general patrolling - Three persons seen scaling down the wall near the room of victim - Two of them (accused) apprehended - Accused led the police and witnesses to the room of victim where she was found lying unconscious - She died in hospital - Accused totally strangers to the area - Medical evidence that death could be caused by strangulation by hands - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Circumstantial evidence is so strong that it points unmistakably to the guilt of accused and incapable of any other hypothesis - Accused were identified as the persons scaling down the wall and apprehended upon immediate chase - High Court erred in holding that the finding of identification was doubtful - Findings recorded by High Court are perverse being based on irrelevant considerations and inadmissible material - Judgement of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored - Circumstantial evidence -Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against acquittal.Evidence:Burden of proof - HELD: Once presence of accused at the scene of crime where they were apprehended is established, onus stood shifted on the defence to have brought forth suggestions for their presence there at the dead of night - They were under an obligation to rebut the burden discharged by prosecution - High Court erred in concluding that prosecution had failed to discharge its burden - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313 - Affording of opportunity to accused to explain incriminating material against him - Conviction of two accused and acquittal of third one by trial court - High Court in the appeal filed by convicts making observations that greater possibility was that the acquitted accused committed the murder after he had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, and acquitted both the accused - HELD: Court cannot place reliance on incriminating material against accused, unless it is put to him during his examination u/s 313 - This prohibition is mandatory in nature - Besides, the trial court did not frame any charge u/s 376 - Observations in post- mortem report cannot be termed to be substantive piece of evidence when the doctor did not say anything about the same in his statement in court which only is the substantive piece of evidence in law - Evidence - Proving of contents of post mortem report.Appeal against Acquittal ,_ HELD: In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgement under appeal is found to be perverse leading to miscarriage of justice, the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal - In the instant case, the circumstantial evidence is so strong that it points unmistakably to the guilt of the respondents and is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of their guilt - Therefore, findings of fact recorded by the High Court are perverse, being based on irrelevant considerations and inadmissible material.JUDGEMENT:Observations by High Court against acquitted person -Trial court convicted two accused and acquitted the third one - Convicts filed appeal - High Court acquitting the two accused made observation that it was possible that the accused acquitted by trial court committed the crime - HELD: It was not permissible for the High Court to castigate the person who had been acquitted by the trial court and whose acquittal had not been challenged before it.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 413
Petitioner	State Of U. P.
Respondent	Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.
SCR	[2011] 6 S.C.R. 1017
Judgement Date	2011-06-13
Case Number	1693

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 U. P. Vs. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U. P.

Abid Vs. State of U. P.

State of U. P. Vs. Mangal Singh & Ors.

Mohd. Sulaiman Vs. Mohd. Ayub & Anr.

Ran Beer Singh (dead) By L.r. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.

Mohd Rashid Ahmad Etc. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Ram Autar Vs. State of U. P.

U. P State Industrial Dev.corpn. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto Manufactures (p) Ltd. & Anr.

State of U. P. Vs. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.

State of U. P. Vs. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U. P.

Abid Vs. State of U. P.

State of U. P. Vs. Mangal Singh & Ors.

Mohd. Sulaiman Vs. Mohd. Ayub & Anr.

Ran Beer Singh (dead) By L.r. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.

Mohd Rashid Ahmad Etc. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Ram Autar Vs. State of U. P.

U. P State Industrial Dev.corpn. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto Manufactures (p) Ltd. & Anr.

State of U. P. Vs. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.