Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Mohammad Imran Alam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 29 April, 2022

State Of Gujarat vs Shiva Vala Bharvad on 13 March, 2026

In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman, reported in 2025 AIJEL (Supreme) 75498. Therefore, in absence of any motive or other reliable evidence, it would be unsafe to convict the accused merely on the basis of bloodstains found on the weapon or the clothes.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of J & K Through Additional vs Nazir Ahmad Bhat And Others on 24 December, 2025

In this regard, reliance was placed on Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online SC 670, wherein the Supreme Court held that when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to clearly establish the role attributed to the accused, such accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court observed that enmity is a double-edged weapon which, while providing motive, also raises the possibility of false implication, and where such possibility cannot be ruled out, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

State vs Aman Goyal on 3 February, 2026

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of MP, 2025, INSC 403 held that prior enmity is a double edge sword. On one hand, it provides motive and on the other hand, it also does not rule the possibility of false implicatioin. The testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with greater caution and ordinarily requires corroboration from independent sources. No such corroboration exists in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Gautam Johar on 3 May, 2025

2025.05.03 17:03:16 +0530 upon the testimony of complainant/PW-1 Amit Chawla as no other public witness has been produced by the prosecution in the present case. In such a situation, there is no gainsaying in stating that the testimony of the complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) must be examined carefully so as to make it the sole basis for convicting the accused. Furthermore, since the previous enmity (qua pending monetary disputes between the complainant and the accused Gautam Johar) is not disputed, this court is also mindful of the fact that the testimony of the complainant needs to be examined in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365 wherein it has been held that previous enmity is a 'double edged weapon' and 'on one hand, it provides motive, and on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication'.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1