Prosecution Must Explain Injuries Found On Deceased, Fanciful Thinking Not Basis To Arrive At Conclusions In Criminal Case

Case: Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Coram: Justice K. Surender

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1362 OF 2008

Court Observation: “Assumptions, presumptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case. Prosecution witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 have stated that when they were playing in front of the house of the deceased, the deceased was washing cloths and subsequently by 10.00 a.m, went inside and closed doors. Further, there was no one in the house except the deceased. It is not in dispute that door was forced open to get the deceased out and she was laid in the verandah.”

Previous Posts

Section 11(6A) Arbitration Act Does Not Prevent Courts From Considering Issue Of Arbitrability: Supreme Court

S.138 NI Act: Evidence Of Power Of Attorney Holder Not Credible Unless They Possess Due Knowledge Of The Transaction: Kerala High Court

Suits Against Govt: Refusal Of Interim Relief After Grant Of Leave To File Suit Without Notice U/S 80 CPC Does Not Require Return Of Plaint: J&K&L High Court

Can’t Presume That No Rules For Promotion Exist Merely Because Order Sanctioning The Post Does Not Indicate Such Rules: Uttarakhand High Court

S.50 Evidence Act: Non-Production Of School Docs To Establish Relationship No Ground To Disbelieve Person With Special Knowledge Of Relation: Karnataka HC

Money Decree/Certificate Of Recovery In Favour Of Financial Creditor Gives Fresh Cause Of Action To Initiate CIRP U/s 7 IBC: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Suits Against Govt: Refusal Of Interim Relief After Grant Of Leave To File Suit Without Notice U/S 80 CPC Does Not Require Return Of Plaint: J&K&L High Court

Keywords

Injuries Found On Deceased, Conclusions In Criminal Case, Prosecution Must Explain