MANIVEL & Ors. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
company of the accused; they told PW-7 that they were A going for hunting. At about 4 A.M. the accused were seen by PW-8 but the deceased was not with them; they told PW-8 that they were returning from hunting. Soon there after the body of the deceased was found in a well. The trial court held the accused guilty and convicted them u/ B ss 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court affirmed the convic tion. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was con tended for the appellants that since accused were inimi cally disposed towards the deceased, the prosecution C case that he would have gone out in their company was highly improbable; and that the last seen theory could not be applied in the instant case. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D i,. HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court. [para 13] [1044 G] Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of E
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.