Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14157 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972

State vs Sahil on 27 March, 2026

23. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment ti- tled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs ... vs Stanley Pradeep Devanesan on 19 March, 2016

82. As the same, in the Judgement reported in 1972 SCC (Cri.) 258 in a case between Dr.S.L.Gosami Vs. State of M.P., it is held that the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does which shift to the accused. It is also held that the real onus is on the prosecution party to prove its case, including the manner of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused has only to raise a doubt in the mind of the court or to satisfy the court that the defence version disclosed by the accused was a probable version of the occurrence.
Bangalore District Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rautu Bodra S/O Bishun Bodra R/O Village ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 16 November, 2021

38. The judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1972) 3 SCC 22 (Dr. S. L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) as well as (2019) 7 SCC 684 (Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim) also do not help the petitioner as the prosecution has brought on record enough materials and has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the defence did not lead any evidence to create a doubt in the prosecution and even during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence failed to create any doubt in the prosecution evidences.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next