Criminal Intimidation, Digital Sexual Threats and Evolving Notions of Chastity: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s 2026 Decision on Section 506 IPC

 I. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s judgment VIJAYAKUMAR Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2026 INSC 525 dated 22 May 2026, affirming the conviction of a police constable under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), marks a significant doctrinal development in the law of criminal intimidation, reputation‑based harm, and the constitutional understanding of women’s sexual autonomy. The Court upheld the conviction for threatening to upload a secretly recorded bathing video of the prosecutrix on social media, while the same accused stood acquitted of rape, deceitful inducement of marriage and voyeurism under Sections 376, 493 and 354C IPC respectively. This separation of liability—acquittal on sexual offences but conviction on aggravated criminal intimidation—invites critical analysis for trial courts, appellate courts and scholars.

Print Page

Can the court convict the accused even if the weapon of offence is not seized?

Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. S

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1750-1751 OF 2022;

State Vs Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc.

Coram: M.R. SHAH; J., KRISHNA MURARI; J.

Dated; OCTOBER 14, 2022

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence if the surgical knife is used for committing Robbery?

 In respect of the second contention of the appellant that since the blade has not been recovered, it cannot be held that the same was a deadly weapon, it is well settled that whether the weapon of offence is deadly or not, is a question of fact which would depend on the nature of weapon used in the offence. A pistol, revolver, sword, axe or even a knife are deadly weapons. However, in the case of knife, the length of the knife, its sharpness and the pointed edge has to be seen to ascertain whether the knife is a deadly weapon or not. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution is that the appellant took out a blade and kicked the complainant. In cross-examination it is further stated that the blade was not a shaving blade, hence the kind of blade used is not proved even by the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Though it is not essential that the weapon of offence should be recovered to prove the nature of the weapon used and that a deadly weapon was used at the time of commission of the offence,

however, the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade. Since from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the size and sharpness of the blade is not proved, hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant used a deadly weapon. 

{Para 10}

11. In the decision reported as MANU/DE/3330/2009 Sanjay and Ors. vs. The State of NCT Delhi this Court held as under:-

"12. The Investigating Officer has not prepared any sketch of

the surgical blade alleged to have been recovered from the

possession of the appellant Sanjay. The seizure memo of the

blade does not show what its size or shape was. Though the

police officials have described the instrument recovered from

the possession of the appellant as a surgical blade, none of the

witness has given any description of the blade which has been

referred by them as a surgical blade. The trial court has also

not made any observation as regards the size, shape or design

of the blade produced during trial. Unless size and shape etc. of

the blade recovered from the appellant is given or a sketch is

prepared from which these particulars may be ascertained, or a

photograph of the weapon is produced, it is not possible for this

Court to ascertain whether the blade recovered from the

possession of the appellant was actually a surgical blade or not

and whether it was a deadly weapon or not. There is no

evidence or opinion on record to show that the blade recovered

from the appellant was such, as would ordinarily result in death

by its use. What would make a blade deadly is its size, design

and shape etc. and a weapon cannot be said to be a deadly

weapon merely because the witnesses described it as a surgical

blade. This is more so when neither any sketch or photograph is

produced nor any particulars of the instrument are given

during evidence and the trial court also does not make a note

as regards the size, shape and design etc. of the blade produced

before it."

12. In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 CRL.A. 290/2021

ASIF Vs STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Pronounced on :28th January, 2022

Print Page

Whether court can convict an accused based on oral evidence if weapon of offence is not recovered?

C.2 Failure to recover the weapon and examine a ballistic expert

17. The deceased had sustained a gun-shot injury with a point of entry and exit. The non-recovery of the weapon of offences would therefore not discredit the case of the prosecution which has relied on the eyewitness accounts of PWs 1, 2 and 3.

18. However, a three-judge Bench of this Court, in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1963) 3 SCR 585, has analysed the precedents of this Court and held that examination of a ballistic expert is not an inflexible rule in every case involving use of a lethal weapon. Speaking through Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was), this Court held:
“41. It has, however, been argued that in every case where an accused person is charged with having committed the offence of murder by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which, and in the manner in which, they have been alleged to have been caused; and in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State [(1950) SCR 821] . In that case, this Court has held that where the prosecution case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries was also such that the shots must have been fired by more than one person and not by one person only, and there was no evidence to show that another person also shot, and the oral evidence was such which was not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It would be noticed that these observations were made in a case where the prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities and in determining the effect of these observations, it would not be fair or reasonable to forget the facts in respect of which they came to be made. These observations do not purport to lay down an inflexible Rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. It is possible to imagine cases where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachable character and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post-mortem notes is so clearly consistent with the direct evidence that the examination of a ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubtedly the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, we do not think that Mr Purushottam is right in contending as a general proposition that in every case where a firearm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however good the direct evidence may be and though on the record there may be no reason to doubt the said direct evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court

JUSTICE Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud JUSTICE A S Bopanna JUSTICE Vikram Nath

Gulab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2021

9th December 2021

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 744

Print Page

Whether court should frame charge against accused for robbery or dacoity as per S 397 of IPC if weapon is not recovered from him?

 The fact that the weapon has not been recovered is no ground for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC. The effect of non recovery of the weapon would be seen only in trial and that cannot be a reason for not framing charges under Section 397 IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

CRL.REV.P. 108/2021

 STATE Vs  HASSAN AHMED

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

Date of decision: 08th November, 2021

Print Page

Whether the court can infer that accused intended to murder deceased if he had given a blow by lathi?

 A lathi is a common item carried by a villager in this

country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capable of

being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of

assault simpliciter. In a case like the present, of an assault on

the head with a lathi, it is always a question fact in each case

whether there was intention to cause death or only knowledge

that death was likely to occur. The circumstances, manner of

assault, nature and number of injuries will all have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case may be.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2020

JUGUT RAM Vs  THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

Author: NAVIN SINHA, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

Print Page

Whether the court can hold accused guilty for the offence under Arms Act if he had a country-made pistol, not in working condition?

  The next the question to be addressed is whether the appellant’s

conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is maintainable.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the country made

pistol (katta) was in a state of disrepair and therefore, could not be used as a weapon. It was argued that in view of the same, the country made pistol could not be considered as a firearm and therefore, neither the offence under Section 25 nor the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was established.

23. The country made pistol (katta) recovered from the appellant

was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL report

has been brought in evidence. The said report indicates that the

country made pistol is of 315 bore, which was designed to fire a

standard eight MM/.315 cartridge. It is also reported that a cartridge

recovered is a live one and could be fired through .315 bore firearm.

The said report (Ex.PW9/A) expressly records that the country made pistol recovered is a firearm and the cartridge is ammunition as designed under the Arms Act.

24. Sh. Puneet Puri, SSO (Ballistics), FSL was examined as PW9.

He had testified that the country made pistol was not in working order and required repair to bring it into working condition.

25. The contention that the country made pistol (katta) recovered

from the appellant is not a firearm, is unmerited. 

26. Undeniably, the country made pistol (katta) recovered from the appellant was designed to discharge a projectile and therefore, even though it may have fallen into disrepair it, nonetheless, falls within the definition of a ‘firearm’ within the meaning under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act.

27. It is also relevant to refer to Section 45 of the Arms Act, which

contains exclusionary clauses and inter alia, specifies that the Arms

Act would not apply to certain arms and ammunition in the given

circumstances. Clause (c) of Section 45 of the Arms Act is relevant and expressly provides that nothing in the Arms Act would apply to “any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a firearm either with or without repair”. Thus, a firearm, which is capable of being used as such with certain repairs is clearly not excluded from the scope of the Arms Act by virtue of Section 45(c) of the said Act.

28. In addition, a live cartridge was also recovered from the

appellant. A live cartridge falls within the definition of ‘ammunition’

as set out in Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Arms Act. Possession of

ammunition is a punishable offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The use of such ammunition is punishable under Section 27 of the

Arms Act. Thus, there is little doubt that the appellant is guilty of

committing an offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the

Arms Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on evidence of the police officer if independent witnesses do not support it?

 The contention that the testimony of the police witnesses could

not be relied upon in absence of corroboration by any public witness, is unpersuasive. Merely because witnesses from the general public that had allegedly assembled at the spot, were not examined does not mean that the testimony of police officials is required to be discarded.

17. In the case of Kalpnath Rai Vs. State: (1998) AIR SC 201, the

Supreme Court observed as under:

“There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police

officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is

unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent

witness or even presence of such witness during police raid

would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care

while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the

evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would

be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject the

prosecution version solely on the ground that no

independent witness was examined.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Dated: 15-9- 2020

Print Page

Whether recovery of the weapon of offence becomes doubtful if accused were handcuffed at that time?

This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that all

the three accused were hand cuffed right from the time they were taken out of the police station and brought back to the police station.

Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar placed reliance on the case of Sureshs/o Mahadeo Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3837 for the proposition that if the accused are hand cuffed at the time of recovery of the weapon, the said recovery cannot be relied upon as it is under duress and pressure. This witness has given a vague

admission that right from the time of leaving the police station till returning to the police station, the accused were hand cuffed. He has not stated that at the time of recovery, they were hand cuffed. Therefore, a vague admission that right from leaving the police station till coming back to the police station, the accused were hand cuffed, does not go to show that the accused were hand cuffed at the time of effecting recovery. Therefore, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the instant case.

{Para 53}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2014

 Shyamsundar Vithal Pawle Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Death Occurred Due To Single Injury Can Also Attract offence U/S 302 IPC (Murder)

From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no

hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC

would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the

body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury

are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death

of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot

be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the

death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled

out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more

particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the

events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether

the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention

of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but

without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the

circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2020

Stalin  Vs  State 

Author: M. R. Shah, J.
Dated:September 9, 2020.

Print Page

Whether prosecution evidence can be disbelieved if there is no recovery of weapon of offence?

As there is clear eyewitness

account of the incident and none of the two eyewitnesses could be

shaken during crossexamination

and they had stuck to the

recollection of the facts relating to the incident, the mere fact that the

weapon of assault or the bullet was not recovered cannot demolish the

prosecution case. 

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2011

PRABHASH KUMAR SINGH  Vs  THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) 

Print Page

Whether time of occurrence can be doubted on ground that digested food has been found in stomach of deceased?

The appellant has sought to prove that the time of death was also

not proved as evidence from P.W.1 and P.W.3 came that they had gone

to the said chawk after meal. From this part of their deposition, the

appellant wants to establish that if that was the case, the stomach of

the deceased could have residue of undigested food. But this part of

the argument has been elaborately dealt with by the High Court and in

Para 13 of its Judgment the High Court observed and held:“

13. In this regard following opinion of Modi’s Medical

Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition at page 450 is

very relevant:‘

It must also be remembered that the process of

digestion in normal, healthy persons may

continue for a long time after death.’

It has come in evidence that at the time of death, the deceased

was aged about 28 years. Thus it is apparent that at that time

deceased was a young man. It has also come in evidence that

the postmortem

was held on 23.1.1993 at 11 a.m. Under the

aforesaid circumstance, because the deceased was a normal

young man of 28 years of age, digestion process might have

been continuing after the death of the deceased till the period

of postmortem

and in that view of the matter only because

digested food has been found in the stomach of deceased it

cannot be held that the prosecution had failed to prove the

time of occurrence that too in view of the cogent, clear and

acceptable evidence of P.W. 1 and 3.”

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2011

PRABHASH KUMAR SINGH  Vs  THE STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) 

Aniruddha Bose, J.

Dated:September 12, 2019.

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 324 of IPC is made out if injury was caused by human nail?

However, the question to be considered in the case at hand is whether an injury caused by human nail may be deemed to be an injury caused by means of an instrument for stabbing or cutting?

9. It may be noted that there is intrinsic difference between the two sets of appendages of human body namely, the teeth and the nails. Teeth are hard, bony appendages growing out of upper and lower jaw bones and by their very nature much stronger than the nails. Whereas the upper set of teeth is fixed, the lower set, activated by strong jaw muscles, is adapted to move against the upper set facilitating a pincer like grip upon the object being bitten or chewed. As such, teeth are capable of chopping away parts of human body such as tip of nose, earlobes or in extreme cases even distal parts of small fingers. They are; therefore, capable of causing much graver injury to human body than human nails.

10. The human nail on the other hand is a thin, though hard, layer covering the outer tip of human fingers. It is made up of a translucent protein called keratin. By virtue of its constitution, it is weaker than a tooth. It is also somewhat flexible. Unless they are intentionally used for pinching, nails of fingers are ordinarily not used in coordination with each other. As a result they are not capable of exerting same amount of pressure as teeth. Therefore, in ordinary course they only cause abrasions or scratch marks. In the present case also, only an abrasion over right side of neck was found on the person of the victim.

11. Thus, a human nail cannot be placed on the same footing as tooth as a weapon of offence or defence. It cannot be deemed to be an instrument used for either cutting or stabbing. Hence, hurt caused by human nail may not qualify as an injury caused by means of an instrument for the purposes of section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. In aforesaid view of the matter, learned Courts below erred in framing a charge of the offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC simply because one of the abrasions found upon the person of one of the victims was said to have been caused by nails. Thus, the charge framed under sections 324 or 324 read with section 34 of IPC against applicants/accused persons is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chhota @ Akash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2015

Coram: (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE 

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 307 of IPC is made out even if injury is not on vital part of victim?

The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife,
which is a dangerous weapon, near his vital
organs, would ordinarily lead to the death of the
victim. The weapon of offence was a 4inch
long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The
Accused /Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the
Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted

multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and
buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the
Accused /Respondent No. 1 would prove the
intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause
the death of the victim. Stabbing a person with a
knife, near his vital organs would in most
circumstances lead to the death of the victim,
thereby falling squarely within the meaning of
Section 307.
5.6 Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which has been
explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not
“grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320
I.P.C.
If a person causes hurt with the intention or
knowledge that he may cause death, it would
attract Section 307.
This Court in R. Prakash v. State of
Karnataka,(2004) 9 SCC 27 held that :
“…The first blow was on a vital part,
that is on the temporal region. Even
though other blows were on nonvital
parts, that does not take away the
rigor of Section 307 IPC……. It is
sufficient to justify a conviction
under Section 307 if there is present

an intent coupled with some overt act
in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted.
Although the nature of injury actually
caused may often give considerable
assistance in coming to a finding as to
the intention of the accused, such
intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in
some cases, be ascertained without
any reference at all to actual wounds.
The Sections makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its
result, if any. The Court has to see
whether the act, irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the Section.”
(emphasis supplied)
If the assailant acts with the intention or
knowledge that such action might cause death,
and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section
307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no
requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part”
of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to
attract S. 307 I.P.C. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1190 OF 2009

State of Madhya Pradesh  V Harjeet Singh

Dated: February 19, 2019

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for attempt to murder if he has not caused grievous hurt?

 The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven. The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. This proposition of law has

been elucidated by a two-judge bench of this Court in Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh  (2014) 5 SCC 369 :
“18. There is no merit in the contention that the statement of medical officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this section since the act resulted in Injury 5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm × 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes “hurt”. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him that he should die. We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the accused that there was no intention to cause death because the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the Thums up bottle and a telephone wire used, as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused.” (Emphasis supplied)
17 In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven punctured wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate that there was an intention to murder. The presence of 11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307 of the Penal Code is attracted in the present case. The judgement of the High Court overlooks material parts of the evidence and suffers from perversity.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1589 OF 2018

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs KANHA @OMPRAKASH 
Dated:February 04, 2019.

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for attempt to murder even if he was not armed with weapons?

There is no merit in the contention that the statement of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No. 5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 Indian Penal Code provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes 'hurt'. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him he should die. We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the Appellant that there was no intention to cause death because the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the Thums-up bottle and a telephone wire used as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2014 

Decided On: 20.02.2014

 Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Citation:  (2014) 5 SCC 369.

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be disbelieved if weapon of offence is not recovered?

In any case, it is an established proposition of law that mere non-recovery of weapon does not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence. [See Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar and Anr. MANU/SC/0359/2000 : (2000) 9 SCC 82; State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/1017/2011 : (2011) 9 SCC 115 and Manjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0936/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC 746].

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

When culpable homicide will not amount to Murder?

The weapon used in the fight between the parties is ‘Kirpan’ which is used by ‘Amritdhari Sikhs’ as a spiritual tool. In the present case, the Kirpan used by the appellant-accused was a small Kirpan. In order to find out whether the instrument or manner of retaliation was cruel and dangerous in its nature, it is clear from the deposition of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased that stab wounds were present on the right side of the chest and of the back of abdomen which implies that in the spur of the moment, the appellant-accused inflicted injuries using Kirpan though not on the vital organs of the body of the deceased but he stabbed the deceased which proved fatal. The injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the injuries caused were the result of blow with a small Kirpan and it cannot be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injuries. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. It is clear from the materials on record that the incident was in a sudden fight and we are of the opinion that the appellant-accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.)

Surain Singh .

v.

The State of Punjab .

Criminal Appeal No. 2284 of 2009

Decided on April 10, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC ONLINE SC364

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be doubted on ground of non recovery of weapon of offence?

The next line of contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the recovery evidence was false and fabricated. We feel no need to address this issue since it had already been validly discarded by the Trial court while convicting the respondents. In any case, it is an established proposition of law that mere non-recovery of weapon does not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence. [See Lakahan Sao Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 82; State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 and Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 746].
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2016

Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy

Print Page