Appeal against acquittal in a murder case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence: confessional statements leading to recovery of articles under Section 27 Evidence Act. Doubts about the investigating officer's conduct, belated confession, and unproven links meant the chain was incomplete; acquittal upheld.
Acquittal by the High Court affirmed; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 31
~
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
A
v.
BALAPRASANNA
(Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2008)
-f
JULY 21, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872:
A
~
•
--\
s.27 - Confessional statement leading to recovery of ar- c tic/es - Prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to recovery of articles under s.27 of the Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement was made voluntarily and led to discovery of the relevant facts - On facts, alleged confession made belatedly - Hence cannot be relied D upon as it created doubt regarding its authenticity and voluntariness - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302.
Circumstantial evidence - Links in the chain of circumstances - Held: Must be complete and proved by cogent evidence - Where case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
E
Prosecution case was that deceased was found dead in her room. On the basis of FIR filed by PW-1, investigation was taken up by P.W.40. Subsequently on the basis of the order of the High Court, such investigation was completed by P.W.42.
F
G
The accused was arrested on suspicion. On the basis of his statement, knife and a log allegedly used for killing, and certain other materials were recovered. Initially, P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife P.W.2, P.W.3, from whose house certain incriminating materias were re- 31
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORrs
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
r
(. I
-
r i
A covered allegedly on ttte basis of statement'of the accused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in the vehicle of P.W.1. Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who took over investigation from P.WAO filed charge-sh~et only against the respondent on the footing that P.Ws. 1 to 4 B had no role to play in the crime. ·
ihe .prosecuti'cin'-relied up~~ ortly circurtt.stanti~I· evidence, namely, confessional statements of the accused leading to recovery of various incriminating materiais. The C prosecution has also relied upon the alleged motive to the effect that the accused urgently wanted money with a view to.increase his marks·in-Mathematics and, therefore, the .ac-.cused had stolen articles: belonging to the deceased: -'
p . T_rial - .. court ~ ·-. convicted ' . , • . accused '" I ~ '· . . unqer ' . \ ·s.302 IPC on • . - , •• • ,• the basis of circumstantial evidence. High Cou.rt found that the circumstances highlighted were not ·sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, ·and directed .acquittal. Hence: the present appeal, -
E Dismissing. the appeal, 'the. . . ~ ; . Court
HELD: 1.1 Where a· cas·e rests squarely on circumstantial evidence; the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the F a·ccused .or the guilt of_ any ther' person.'.The ma.l'n cir cumstances_ reiled upon " - - ' .: - -- ' ' ~ ~ by the prosec'utiorr - ~ ' . . ' reTates • • ~ to the \ '! statements .ofthe. accused leading to discovery of m·ate~ riat' facts~ adissible uride'r s:21 of the Eyidenc Act, 1'si2. [Paras 9,18] [41-E, 45-8,C] ·. .. · · · 1·· ·· · G Hukam. Singt1v. State ofRajqsthan . ' • . . ' • . .·. . . f AIR (1977)' . • . . s~ - 1063; Eradu' and. Ors. v.' ·~sttite of Hyderab'ad°flJR. (19S6) SC ·316; Earabhadrappa v.' State of Kamataka ·AiR (1 83) sc 446; State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985)° SC 1224; Ba/winder H Singh · v. State: of Punjab Al R (1987) sc 3·50; Ashok Kumr
33
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA
).._
---!'
.>,
~
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 79 State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumaht Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State ofMadhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr. (2003) 11 sec 261 - relied on.
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills - referred to.
1.2. Law is well settled that the prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to discovery of articles under s.27 of the Evidence Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement' has been made voluntarily and leads to discovery of the relevant facts. [Para 19] [45-C,D]
Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor AIR (1947) PC 67; K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P AIR (1962) SC 1788; Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (2004) SC 2665;. Rameshwar v. State Rammi alias of Madhya Pradesh AIR (1999) SC 3544 - relied on.
2.1. Significantly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW 40 who was investigating initially. His evidence. has to be considered in the background of what has been stated by PW 22 and CW 1. It has been accepted by the prosecution that great efforts were made by PW 40 to falsely implicate PWs 1 ~to 4 and for that purpose a departmental proceeding was initiated. Even according to the statement of the subsequent investigating officer (PW 42), several blank papers with the signature of PW 22 and CW 1 had been taken by PW 40 and such documents had been used to create false records to implicate PWs 1 to 4. It is to be noted that PW 2 himself was one of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
"" ', .. t= .-- r-
A the suspected persons at the initial stage of investigation. That apart, materials on record such as the statement of P.W.22 recorded under s.164 Cr.P.C. and the state;.. ment of C.W.1, raise a reasonable doubt relating to voluntariness of the alleged confession. P.W.22, who is a B close relation of the deceased (cousin) has stated that two days after the occurrence after the information that accused was roaming near LIC Colony. Police arrested him and he was taken to the police station and a witness I was present there. It is further stated that at the time of cenquiry,theaccusedwasbeaten up by thepoliceand they seized a gold ring and Rs.5000/- cash from him. If this is the statement of P.W.22 recorded under s.164 Cr.P.C., a witness in whose presence the confessional statement leading to discovery of articles fr.om the house Dof P.W.3had been made,it raisesseriousdoubt regard- ing the voluntariness of the statement. lri this context, it is also note worthy to indicate that C.W. t in tlis evidence has stated that the accused was in police station on 24-42003 itself. Similar s~tement is made by P.W.4. That apart, EC.W.1has stated that no statement has been made inhis presence. The prosecution version to the effect that even some signatures on blank papers had been taken from P.W.22 and C.W.1 thus assumes great importance. [Paras 25,26] [47-E,F,G,H, 48-A,B,C,D,E]
2.2. The alleged statement made by the accused led to discovery of knife, bloodstained clothes,· rope, etc. There is no evidence to show that in f;:tct the wearing apparels containing bloodstains belonged to the accused, except the alleged confessional statement. No witnesshas spoken that those clothes werewonby the accused at any time far less at or about the time of occurrence. It is also to be kept in view that those articl.es were recovered from the house of P.W.3 and at the init!al· stage c:>f investigation, P.W.3 himself was one of the suspected peronandhewasarrested. Therefore,thestatementofP.W.3
F
G
H
./
+.-
1-
·-
j>
)- ~
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. 35 BALAPRASANNA
).._
' '
1
and his mother that those articles were brought by theA accused and left in the upstairs room is to be considered with a pinch of salt. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that in fact the bloodstained clothes and rope had tallied with the blood grouping of the deceased. The knife did not contain any bloodstain. Therefore, the aspect relating to B recovery of articles from the house of P.W.3 and his mother cannot be considered as a link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. [Para 27] [48-E,F,G 49-A]
2.3. The next recovery relates to recovery of com- c poter and accessories. Apart from the fact that there is niggling doubt about the so called confession, in view of statement under s.164 Cr.P.C. of P.W.22 and the statement of C.W.1, a further doubt is raised regarding such aspect in view of evidence of C.W.1 to the effect that he had seen such computer in the room of the deceased when theyD had gone to the room after the offence was reported. The fact that C.W.1 is a close relation of the deceased adds weight to his evidence rather than taking it away. Even accepting that the computer had been given to P.W.15 by the accused, such circumstance by itself does not unerrE ingly points towards the guilt of the accused either in respect of offence of murder or even robbery. It is quite possible that such articles might have been borrowed by the accused from the deceased and not necessarily stolen by the accused from the deceased after killing her. F The fact that P.W.9 had not initially stated anything before P.W.40 about the accused coming down with computer and stated so for the first time when she was re-examined after 5 months cannot be lost sight of. As a matter of fact, P.W.9 who was examined on the very date when poG lice started investigation did not inform the police that she had seen the accused coming down from upstairs or that the accused had threatened her. [Para 28] [49-8,C,D,E,F]
E
F
G
2.4 The next recovery relates to the ingots. For the aforesaid aspect, the evidence of P.Ws. 17, 18 and 19 is
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
,..
I '
.(
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A relevant.; Since the gold,en jewellery had· been molten and were recovered in the shape of ingots, itwould_be very hazardous to come to the conclusion that in fact the golden jewel,lery belonged to the deceased. If the accused had killed th~ decease~ and stolen. those golden jewellery, tt:iere is no B reason, as to _why he had also not taken ear rings from the dee.eased. The fact that ear _rings .were on. the qead pody is admitted by the prosecution . .[Para 29] [49-G, 50-A,Bl
2.5 The prosecutibn has strongly relied upon the fact cthat"M"Dollarbelongingtothe deceased and a chain wit~ ey of the room of the deceased were discovered from .inside the toilet in the room which was previously occupied by the accused; For the aforesaid purpose, they have r.elied upon the evidence of P.W.42 and the seizure witness. P.W.24. The accusep had alleg.edly made earlier D confessional_ statement before P.W.40 on 26-4-2003 leading to discovery of several articles. The subsequent statement spoken to by, P.W.42, the subsequent Investigating Offi.cer, is alleged to have been -made only in September, 2003, after b.out five months, So far as the first confesE sion- statement made before P.W.40 is concerned, admittedly .the ccused was under physical .custody, at that tim, whereas at the time of Jast confession .stated to have been _made before P.W.42, the accused. was· on bail and he had been summoned by P.W.42 for further examinaF tion and, therefore, techoic:ally in custody. If the. accused had· not made such a statement at such first instance, when he had confessed about other articles, .it is not understood as to how afte.r 5 months when he was on. bail he would mke such a statement. Such alleged cQnfes Gsionmade belatedly thus creates doubt regardingits au- thenticity or voluntariness. !n this context, it is to be noted that .C.W. 1 states that "M" Dollar was taken from him by P.W.42 for the purpose of facilitating investigation. Keeping in view the fact that C.W.1 is a close relation of the Hdeceased aridobviously interested inpunishingthe real
F
f.
;...
INSPECTOR OF POLICE; TAMIL NADU v. 37 BALAPRASANNA
culprit, su.ch a statem.ent coming from ·c.W.1 cannot be slightly brushed aside. [Pafa 30 ] [50-8,C,D,E,F,G]
2.6 The fact that there . had been a statement allegedly made by P.W.1 leading to recovery of a parallel key from the dash board of the car of P.W.1, cannot be lost sight of. It is of course true that the prosecution has tried to exonerate P.W.1 by adducing evidence through P.Ws .. 36 and 39 to the effect that immediately after recovery of the dead body, P.W.40 had taken two such keys, thus contradicting the alleged confession of P.W.1. However, the very suspicious role of P.W.40, who apparently was in possession of.at least two keys 9f the. same lock creates suspicion regarding recovery of another key after 5 months. [Para 31] [50-G,H, 51-A,8] ·
A
8
C
o
E
Case Law Reference
(1977) SC 1063 relied on [Para 9] AIR (1956) SC 316 relied on [Para 9] AIR (1983) SC 446 relied on [Para 9] . AIR (1985) SC 1224 relied on [Para 9] AIR (~987) SC 350 relied on [Para 9] AIR (1989) SC 1890 relied on [Para 9] AIR (1954) SC 621 relied on [Para 9] (1996) 10 sec 193 relied on [Para 10]
F
G
H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
,(_
+-
A
B
c
AIR (1990) SC 79 relied on [Para 11] (1992) CRL. l.J. 1104 relied on [Para 12] AIR (1952) SC 343 relied on [Para 15] AIR (1984) SC 1622 relied on [Para 16] (2003) 8 sec 180 relied on [Para 17] (2003) 11 sec 261 relied on [Para 17] AIR (1947) PC 67 relied on [Para 19] AIR (1962) SC 1788 relied on [Para 22] AIR (2004) SC 2665 relied on [Para 23] AIR (1999) SC 3544 relied on [Para 24]
D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2008
From the final Judgment and order dated 23/12/2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2005
E
R. Sundaravaradan, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabu Ramasubramanian for the Appellant.
A.TM. Rangaramanujam, V. Balaji and P.N. Ramalingam for the respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
)!-
39
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
. ·Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine.
A
~.·
-~
. The deceased is one Mayurani, a Sri Lankan student, who was residing in the first floor .of the house belonging to one B Solsimalai (P.W.1). The Accused is also a Sri Lankan student studying in a different co.liege, but staying in the second floor of the same premises. The occurrence allegedly took place in the afternoon of 22.4.2003. The First Information Report was lodged byP.W.1 on 24-4-2003 at about 9.30 A.M. It was indicated in C the First Information Report that on 24.4.2003 at 9.00A.M., while the informant had gone to perform pooja in the first floor of the house, he got foul smell in the last room of the first floor and found blood seeping through the front door. On opening the win.:. dow he noticed that Mayurani was lying in a pool of blood with o her face covered with a bag. On the basis of the aforesaid F.l.R., investigation was taken up initially by P.W.40. Subsequently Ori the basis of the order of the High Court, such investigation was completed by P.W.42.
The accused is stated to have been arrested on suspicion on 26.4.2003. On the basis of the statement of the accused, prosecution discovered many materials including a knife and a log allegedly used for killing.
E
Initially, P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife P.W.2, F P.W.3, from whose house certain incriminating material were recovered allegedly on the basis of statement of the accused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in the vehicle of P.W.1. Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who took over investigation from P.W.40 filed charge-sheet only against the respondent on the footing that P.Ws. 1 to 4 had no role to play in the G crime.
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A saternent lead!ng t,o rcovery of Travel .bags {M.Os. 2 & 3), knife c~.05), wooden log (M.0.28·). rubbr gfoves (rvi.0.29· series) cotton rope with human hair (M.N.0.30 series),. two sponges soaked with blood (M.0.31 series), bloodstained blue cl91ourjeanpant(M.0.32), bl.oodstained white banian (M.0.33), B c'olour banial) (M .. 0,,34), bloodstained 'grey colour pant (M.0.35), bloqdstained pillow (M.0.36), piastre bucket (M.0.37) from the h_ouse.of.P.W'.3. Ex".P-8 is th_e statement leading to recovery of computer and itS accessori~~ (M.Os. 6 to 17) from the house of P.'f:-l 15, .a Clssr:nate of the accused. Ex.P-10 is the statem.ent c relafing.fo.)ew'elleries, ultimately leading to.recovery of gold in.,. gots.(rvi.Q.1a"series).from the house of P.W .. 19 on the basis of ot.her connecting statement~ of P.W.17 andP.W.18. These three statemeri'fs., Exs. P.-6, p·a and P'-1 o dated 26-4-2003, were m~~fo befie P,VV.40 in.the presence of P.W.22 and C.W.1.. The other: 'confessional stateme.nt Ex.P-12 dated 22-9.-2003 made D b.efor~·P.W.42 nd_Subbiah nd P.w.24; led to ncovery of.''.M" dqffar.(M.'Q.3f and key chain with key ch~in in (M.0.39) fr9rn the .toilet in the room of the qCCused. The prosecution has.also relied upon the alleged motive to the effect that the. accused urgently wanted rnoney with a view to increase his marks in E .. Mathematics :and, .. therefore, the accused had-·stolen articles belonging to ·the deceased.
;.
· 5. The trial court found the resp~ndeni guilty and recorded conviction and imposed sentence as aforestated. The trial court F found ttiat the prosecution version rested on circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances were highlighted to find the· accused guilty. , · · ·
·(a) · The death is homicidal;
>-
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. 41 BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
deceased and PW 9 were available in the premises A and there was no other person.
E
42
suPqEME COURT REPORTS,
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
~
. _11. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the followE ing tests:
.~
F
G
H
43
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused butA should be inconsistent with his innocence."
-.+
...,
,..
~
~
--1..
c
F
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances fron:i which
H
44
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
'1 16. A reference may be made to a later decision .in Sharad Birdti°iC,hf!m;l Sarda v. St9te of MaharashtraJ. (AIR 1984 SC . 162.2~. Therein, hile dealing with cicumstantial evidence,. it D has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is con;iplete and the infirm,ity of lacuna inprosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The co.nditions precedent ·in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based. qn circum?tantial evidence, rnust. be f_ully · e_stablished. E They are: , . - . ,
F
G
~-
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. · 45 BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion A consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. ·
\
8
C
~
. 19. Law is well settled t.hat the prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to discovery of articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has to prove through co"gent evidence that the statement has been made voluntarily D and leads to discovery of the relevant facts. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been stated and restated in several decisions of this Court. However, in almost all such decisions reference is made to the observation of the Privy CounCil in Pu/ukuri Kotayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67). It is worthwhile to extract such quoted obser\tation:
E ·
"It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object ·pro-duced; the fact . discovered embraces the place from which the object is F produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user" or the past history, of the object ~- produced· 1s not related to his discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information-supplied by a person in G. custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of the knife; knives were discovered m·any years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the H ·
H ·
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
D
E
>-.
F
,...
H
47
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
A
D
"12. True, such information is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but admissibility alone would not render the evidence, pertaining to the above information, reliable. While testing the reliability of such E evidence the court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the accused."
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
49
there is nothing to indicate that in fact the bloodstained clothes A and rope had tallied with the blood grouping of the deceased. The knife did not contain any bloodstain. Therefore, the aspect relating to recovery of articles from the house of P.W.3 and his mother cannot be considered as a link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. B
D
E
F
"I did not tell anyone that Balaprasanna took away the computer and threatenad me. I did not tell this even to the G Inspector of Police after going to the police station. I do not tell this even to P.W.1 ... ".
50 SUPREME GOURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
-;.( ~
A Since the golden jewellery had been molten and were recovered in the shape of ingots, it would be very hazardous to come to the conclusion that in fact the gold.en jewellery belonged to the deceased. If the accused had killed the deceased and stolen those golden jewellery, there is no reason as to why he had s. also not taken ear rings from the deceased. The fact that ear rings were_ on. the dead body is .admitteq _by the prosecution.
G
>--
,I..-.
"").-
·--
I
--,. I
t--
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. BALAPRASANNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
51
dash board of the car of P.W.1, cannot be lost sight of. It is of A course true that the prosecution has tried to exonerate P.W.1 by adducing _evidence through P.Ws. 36 and 39 to the effect that immediately after recovery of the dead body, P.W.40 had taken two such keys, thus contradicting the alleged confession of P.W.1. However, the very suspicious role of P.W.40, who apB pare.ntly was in possession of at least two keys of the same lock creates suspicion regarding recovery of another key after 5 months.
C
D.G.
Appeal dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence comprising confessional statements under Section 27 Evidence Act could stand where voluntariness was doubtful.
Whether the recoveries of incriminating articles were proved by cogent evidence to complete the chain of circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hukam Singh v. State of RajasthanRelied on¶9
AIR (1977) SC 1063 · Who else cites this
Eradu and Ors. v. State of HyderabadRelied on¶9
AIR (1956) SC 316 · Who else cites this
Earabhadrappa v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶9
AIR (1983) SC 446 · Who else cites this
State of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors.Relied on¶9
AIR (1985) SC 1224 · Who else cites this
Balwinder Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
AIR (1987) SC 350 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.Relied on¶9
AIR (1989) SC 1890 · Who else cites this
Bhagat Ram v. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
AIR (1954) SC 621 · Who else cites this
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.Relied on¶10
(1996) 10 SCC 193 · Who else cites this
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors.Relied on¶11
AIR (1990) SC 79 · Who else cites this
State of UP v. Ashok Kumar SrivastavaRelied on¶12
(1992) Crl.LJ 1104
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶15
AIR (1952) SC 343 · Who else cites this
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶16
AIR (1984) SC 1622 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. RajaramRelied on¶17
(2003) 8 SCC 180 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr.Relied on¶17
(2003) 11 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Pulukuri Kotayya v. EmperorRelied on¶19
AIR (1947) PC 67 · Who else cites this
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.PRelied on¶22
AIR (1962) SC 1788 · Who else cites this
Anter Singh v. State of RajasthanRelied on¶23
AIR (2004) SC 2665 · Who else cites this
Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶24
AIR (1999) SC 3544 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu
Balaprasanna
Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
