TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Conviction for Poisoning with Intent, Citing Strong Circumstantial Evidence and Motive.</h1> The SC upheld the HC's judgment, confirming the accused's guilt under Section 328 IPC for administering poison with intent to cause hurt. The conviction ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the accused administered poison with intent to cause hurt under Section 328 IPC.2. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency for conviction.3. The credibility of the accused's defense and the prosecution's case.4. The role of motive in establishing guilt.5. The appropriateness of the sentence imposed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the accused administered poison with intent to cause hurt under Section 328 IPC:The offense for which the accused has been punished is under Section 328 IPC for administering poison to a doctor by a compounder with intent to cause hurt. The High Court concluded that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, based on the peculiarities and probabilities of the materials presented.2. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency for conviction:The prosecution's case is built on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence can only be the probative basis for conviction if it excludes the innocence of the accused and the guilt must be the only inference. The High Court found that the accused brought two packets, one of which contained poison, and denied the presence of strychnine in stock falsely. The accused's trembling when questioned and the false plea in the committal court further strengthened the circumstantial evidence against him.3. The credibility of the accused's defense and the prosecution's case:The accused's defense was one of denial, suggesting that the hospital attendant might have prepared the packets. However, the High Court found this defense implausible. The accused's false denial of strychnine in stock and the long time taken to bring aspirin suggested that he went to the store room to fetch strychnine. The accused's trembling and lack of anxiety to save the doctor were seen as guilty behavior.4. The role of motive in establishing guilt:The High Court noted that the accused bore a grudge against the doctor, which provided a motive for the crime. Although the adequacy of the motive is subjective, the presence of motive, combined with other circumstantial evidence, supported the conclusion of guilt.5. The appropriateness of the sentence imposed:The Supreme Court found that the cumulative effect of the guilt-pointing circumstances was such that the accused must be guilty. The sentence imposed by the High Court was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the accused was guilty of administering poison with intent to cause hurt under Section 328 IPC. The circumstantial evidence, combined with the accused's behavior and false denials, formed a strong chain of guilt. The motive and the accused's actions were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the sentence was found to be appropriate. The appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
