AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3638 ::2010 AIR SCW 4470 ::(2010) 2 CriLR(Raj) 643 ::(2010) 3 CurCriR 147 ::(2011) 1 AllCriR 274 ::2010 CriLR(SC&MP) 643 ::2011 (2) SCC (Cri) 150 ::2010 (12) SCC 91 ::(2010) 4 RecCriR 101 ::(2010) 7 Scale 478 ::(2010) 2 ALD(CRL) 590 ::2010 CalCriLR 3 382 ::(2010) 3 AllCriLR 736 ::(2010) 47 OCR 185 ::(2010) 3 Crimes 277 ::(2010) 3 UC 1433 ::2010 AllMR(CRI) 3318 ::(2011) 72 AllCriC 327

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Calcutta)

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. Sathasivam, B. S. Chauhan , JJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.8— Murder @page-SC3639Son alleging that his father had killed his mother and brother - Witnesses close relatives and neighbours of accused supporting prosecution case - Ocular evidence of complainant supported by medical evidence - No reason given as to why such close relations of accused would depose against him - Motive becomes irrelevant as evidence of trustworthy witnesses is available - No evidence to show that accused had received any grave or sudden provocation from victims - Accused liable to be convicted for murder. (Para 17) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.8— Murder - Motive - Proof - Not essential when direct evidence establishes crime - However, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance - But even in those cases to dislodge entire prosecution story would be giving motive undue importance. (Para 19 20) (C) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Murder - Abscondance by accused - Not by itself sufficient to prove guilt. Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has bee....