TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the proved abduction was for the purpose of murder so as to attract Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) Whether the circumstances proved by the prosecution established homicidal death and participation of the accused in the murder, justifying conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (i): Whether the proved abduction was for the purpose of murder so as to attract Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The evidence showed repeated pursuit of the victim, forcible taking away from one place after another, and express threats that he would be finished off. The surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous version in the FIR supported the inference that the abduction was not a mere assault but was committed with the objective of causing death. Section 364 is attracted when abduction is for the purpose of murder, even if the murder follows shortly thereafter.
Conclusion: The abduction was proved to have been committed in order that the victim might be murdered.
Issue (ii): Whether the circumstances proved by the prosecution established homicidal death and participation of the accused in the murder, justifying conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The post-mortem evidence established a homicidal death caused by multiple injuries. The victim was last seen being forcibly taken away by the accused, and his dead body was found within a short time thereafter. The accused offered no explanation for what happened to the victim while he was within their special knowledge. The Court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence, presumption of fact, and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude that the chain of circumstances pointed to the accused as the perpetrators. The recovery of the shirt identified as that worn by the victim at the time of abduction further strengthened the prosecution case.
Conclusion: The homicidal death of the victim and the participation of the accused in the murder were established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 364 read with Section 34 was affirmed and the accused were additionally convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed and the appeals of the convicted persons dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution proves abduction with an expressed intent to kill, the victim is last seen in the custody of the accused, and the dead body is found shortly thereafter with the accused failing to explain the circumstances especially within their knowledge, the court may draw the inference of murder and sustain conviction under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
TaxTMI 
