Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCHOOL OF LAW
Semester – V
PROJECT
For
NAME: ABDULLAH
Enr. No:R154216005
INTRODUCTION
CASE LAWS
The view was followed by Rajasthan High Court in Birju Ram v. State of Rajasthan1 in which
the following observations were made: In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to record statement of aforesaid witnesses under section
1
2006 Cr LJ 1794
164, Cr. P.C when no request was made from the side of the I.O for recording statements of the
witnesses, and as such he acted without jurisdiction in recording their statements under section
164, Cr. P.C and as such those statements can not be taken into consideration.
The prosecution case was that Hoshiar Singh was taken away by the accused and after 15/20
minutes gun shots were heard. However, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased found that there were only lacerated wounds. There was no gun shot wound on the
body of the deceased. Hence, some doubt is created in the prosecution version regarding the
charge under Section 302 IPC whose benefit will go to the accused. Thus the appellants are
entitled to get the benefit of doubt on that charge and consequently they are acquitted of charge
under Section 302 IPC. (Para 6)
The appellants are guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC because admittedly a
gun shot was fired at Baggar Singh which hit him in the leg.
“The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident. Motive not being apparent or
not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a
conclusion. When there is definite evidence proving an in...
2
AIR 1956 SC 415
3
2016 2 SCC 607