Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Rajammal And Others Etc. vs State By D.S.P. Cb. C.I.D., Madras And ... on 3 August, 1992

Ramanand Pandey S/O Badrinath vs State, Through The Public Prosecutor ... on 27 June, 2007

In the case of Mr. Duggan Adrian Kevin v. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2005 decided on 18-7-2006)(to which one of us, Britto, J was a party), reference was made to a Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Rajammal and others v. State 1993 Cri.L.J. 3029 wherein reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer and observed that Section 101 of the Evidence Act lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word 'especially' stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1