Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 717 (2.83 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh on 10 December, 1999

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263] (SCC para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 204 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) 1 SCC 731 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 247] (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 574 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 552] (SCC para 4).]
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263] (SCC para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 204 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33005 ) 1 SCC 731 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 247] (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 574 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 552] (SCC para 4).]
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Siddanki Ram Reddy vs State Of A.P on 27 July, 2010

In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr. Reddy, the Court found that the suspect was permitted to stand anywhere among seven persons and the witnesses were then asked to identify the person whom they saw on the crucial day and on these facts this Court held that the test identification parade was conducted in a reasonably foolproof manner. This is not what has been done in the present case and, therefore, the corroboration of the substantive evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 on the identification of the suspect by the test identification parade is not trustworthy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da @ ... on 17 July, 2025

Para-32:- In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh22, this Court in the facts therein held that recovery of a dead body, which was from the place pointed out by the accused, was a formidable incriminating circumstance. This would, the Court held, reveal that the dead body was concealed by the accused unless there is material and evidence to show that somebody else had concealed it and this fact came to the knowledge of the accused either because he had seen that person concealing the dead body or was told by someone else that the dead body was concealed at the said location. Here, if the accused declines and does not tell the criminal court that his knowledge of the concealment was on the basis of the possibilities that absolve him, the court can presume that the dead body (or physical object, as the case may be) was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the person who can offer the explanation as to how he came to know of such concealment is the accused. If the accused chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is that the concealment was by the accused himself.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Rajiv @ Monu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 October, 2018

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC, 471, it was noted that after the rape and murder of 4 years old female child, the body was dumped in the field. The accused was convicted and condemned to death penalty by the Sessions Court but was exonerated by the DB of the High Court of Bombay. State of Maharashtra, not having reconciled with the clean chit granted to the accused, filed an SLP before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court noted that one of the formidable incriminating circumstance against the respondent/accused was that the dead body was recovered on his pointing out. The statement of the respondent/accused which led to the recovery of the dead body was held to be admissible. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that there could be three possibilities where the accused points out towards the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next