Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 11 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-02-13 allowed

Tapan Sarkar etc. etc vs State of West Bengal

Bench: 2 — <UNKNOWN>, <UNKNOWN>

In Brief

Tapan Sarkar and two co-accused were convicted of murdering a 2½-month-old infant child whose body was recovered from a well. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal against the High Court's confirmation of conviction. Finding no eye-witness evidence and relying on circumstantial evidence (strained family relations, evasive replies, and the accused's presence), the trial court had invoked Section 34 IPC (common intention). The Supreme Court held that mere circumstantial evidence without specific proof of any overt act by any particular accused is insufficient to establish the common intention required under Section 34 IPC. The non-examination of key witnesses further created reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted all three accused.",

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Law Evidence Murder Joint Liability Circumstantial Evidence Section 34 IPC Common Intention

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login