Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Talevar And Anr on 17 June, 2011

Ashfaque Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2018

The facts of the case i.e. State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar (supra) relied by the learned counsel of the applicant do not match with the instant case. In that case Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder" while in the instant case, learned trial Court did not draw the inference on the basis of seizure of stolen property that the applicant had committed the murder. It only drew the inference that the applicant had committed the loot. So that judgment does not help the appellant much.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna @ Dandupalya Krishna vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2018

In this behalf he also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar alias Raju Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2017 SC 614 and another decision in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar and another reported in (2011)11 SCC 666. He further submitted that though the chance finger prints were obtained at the place of incident the same has been suppressed and has not been produced before 8 the Court though they have been referred to the FSL. The withholding of the report of the chance finger print itself creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B R B - Full Document

Sivankutty Nair vs R.Rajendran on 24 March, 2021

"27. The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722)"
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - K Edappagath - Full Document

Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs State Of Haryana on 9 May, 2014

In State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar and Anr.6 also it was held that where the only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen property, then although circumstances may indicate that theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of stolen property had committed murder. Also the recovery of looted articles at the instance of the accused could not be relied upon in 5 (2012) 2 SCC 399 6 (2011) 11 SCC 666 18 absence of any details as to when and where such recovery was made and in absence of any confession of commission of offence by the accused. Besides, the seizure of the goods was not corroborated by any independent witness in the present case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

State vs . Sonu @ Monu S/O Sh. Ashok Kumar on 10 December, 2021

16. We have imported ourselves with abounding pronouncements of this court on this point. It may be true that at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubts. We may hasten to add that circumstance such as (I) the period of interval between the malfeasance and the disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered object and its availability in the market; (iii) nature of the object and its relevance to the crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the object; (v) the testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and / or other like factors, are weighty considerations that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. the State; Pancho vs. State of Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr. and Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pralay @ Prem Pradhan And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 February, 2022

The act of the Appellants falls 6 under the offence under Section 411 IPC only. Looking to the entire evidence, chain of circumstances is not complete. Therefore, conviction of the Appellants is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on Sonu @ Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2013, Supreme Court, Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 340, Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 15 SCC 754, Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 11 SCC 160, State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666, Nagappa Dondiba Kalal v. State of Karnataka, 1980 (Supp) SCC 336, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, Bharat v. State of M.P., 2003 CriLJ 1297, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider etc., AIR 2019 SC 38, Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2014 SCW 1364 and Hari Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 345.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next