#Section 302 IPC

The Supreme Court set aside consecutive life sentences for murder and rape imposed in a single trial, holding they must run concurrently under the Muthuramalingam Constitution Bench ruling. The court clarified that Section 31 CrPC does not permit consecutive life terms for offences arising from the same incident, and granted the appellant set-off from his 2010 arrest.

The Supreme Court affirmed Dinesh Kumar's murder conviction under IPC 302/34 but, after the Juvenile Justice Board confirmed he was a minor at the time, it vacated his life term and rigorous imprisonment, ordering his release and removing any disqualification. The ruling clarifies that juveniles cannot be subjected to adult sentencing even for serious offences.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reduction of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that material inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and a dying declaration uncorroborated by medical evidence failed to prove the specific intent required for Section 302 IPC. The ruling reinforces that courts must rigorously test dying declarations against ocular and forensic evidence before sustaining murder convictions. The accused, having already served a six-year sentence under Section 304 Part II, will not face life imprisonment.

Rajasthan High Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment in a brutal axe murder case, applying the rarest of rare doctrine. The ruling underscores the court's rigorous balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors under sentencing jurisprudence.

Allahabad HC reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain under the Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda principles to secure conviction. The court acquitted the accused, holding that gaps in the chain of custody and forensic handling vitiated the prosecution's case, reinforcing strict standards for circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

Allahabad High Court reduces conviction from murder to culpable homicide where a single blow was struck in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, emphasizing the distinction between intent and knowledge. The ruling sets guidelines for evaluating hostile witness testimony and mandates victim compensation under Section 357 CrPC, offering critical precedent for similar cases.

Bombay High Court suspends life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration (14 years) without appeal hearing violates the Saudan Singh precedent. The ruling underscores the judiciary's duty to prevent unjust delays in appeal disposal, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases.

Bombay High Court acquits the appellant of murder charges under Section 302 IPC due to gaps in circumstantial evidence but sustains conviction under Section 201 IPC for destroying evidence. The ruling underscores that while murder requires stringent proof beyond reasonable doubt, destruction of evidence can be established with a lower evidentiary standard, impacting criminal trial strategies.

Karnataka High Court ruled that a dying declaration lacking a medical certificate attesting to the declarant's fitness is inadmissible as substantive evidence. The acquittal in this dowry death case underscores the prosecution's burden to establish the declarant's mental soundness at the time of the statement, reinforcing evidentiary standards under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court suspended the life sentence of a female accused in a murder case because the prosecution failed to corroborate her alleged assault with any physical injury on the victim. This ruling reinforces that gender and evidentiary gaps in forensic linkage can justify conditional bail pending appeal, even in non-bailable offenses under Section 302 IPC, setting a nuanced precedent for injury-based acquittal reasoning in appellate bail.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed a mother’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for killing her two children, rejecting unsound mind claims. The court relied on extra-judicial confessions and medical evidence, emphasizing that psychological distress does not negate mens rea in heinous crimes. The ruling reinforces strict liability for infanticide under criminal law, impacting future cases involving mental health defences.

The Allahabad High Court acquitted four appellants in a murder trial, holding that conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot rely solely on hearsay, unverified rumours, or sniffer dog evidence without proper documentation. The ruling reinforces that criminal convictions demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases lacking direct or corroborative evidence.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a murder and theft conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that a conclusive chain linking the accused to the crime-including recovery of stolen property, fingerprint evidence, and motive-is sufficient for conviction, even with hostile witnesses and the death of the informant. This ruling reinforces that direct evidence is not mandatory under Indian criminal law if the circumstances unequivocally point to guilt.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC can stand on the strength of unimpeachable eyewitness testimony and medical evidence alone, even if motive is not established. This reinforces the primacy of direct ocular evidence in criminal trials, setting a precedent for prosecutors and defence counsel in cases lacking clear motive.

Allahabad High Court acquitted accused in a murder case, ruling that prosecution witnesses' contradictions, unexplained FIR delay, and failure to subject testimony to rigorous cross-examination failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces that eyewitness accounts alone are insufficient without corroboration and procedural compliance.