Krishna Mahadev Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 Scc Online Bom 191

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Krishna Mahadev Chavan...

The court observed that, the circumstance of ‘last seen’, along with the failure to provide a reasonable explanation of the accused are not enough to establish the guilt of the accused being reasonable doubt. As the case was relying on the last seen theory and no plausible explanation was provided by the accused, the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt and homicidal death is in the realm of uncertainty. Thereby, the accused was not convicted under section 302 of IPC.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case revolved around a mother who had gifted... Read more » Read more »

PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN Vs. UOI – (2020) 4 SCC 727

Section 18A – SC/ST Act, 1989 – Constitutional Validity – The Apex Court, observed that provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC shall not apply to the cases under Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section... Read more » Read more »

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, SLP (C) 15737/2019, Judgment date: 05-05-2021

The classification of Marathas as a socially and educationally backward class was unreasonable as they belonged to a politically dominant caste with significant economic resources. The court also concluded that the majority opinion in the Indra Sawhney case was correct and that the limit of 50 percent for caste-based reservations did not need consideration by... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.