Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Raju @ Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

State vs Vinod Kumar on 29 April, 2026

39. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to note that the law is trite that in case of circumstantial evidence 7, "the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else". In fact, the superior courts have time and again reiterated that the for the circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction of an accused must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In other words, such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, rather, should be inconsistent with his innocence. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while carrying out an exhaustive review of the judicial dictates 7 Raju v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 14 SCC 444.
Delhi District Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akib vs State Of U.P. on 26 October, 2023

The CDR details collected by the investigating officer regarding mobile phone of co-accused, Muslim, and deceased have not been certified as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, his case is different from co-accused, Muslim. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.05.2023. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Krishna Vs State(2008) 15 SCC 430 Para15; Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC in support of his case he has submitted that the Apex Court has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively it form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability only the accused committed the alleged offence only then implication of an accused can be justified.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document

Muslim vs State Of U.P. on 26 October, 2023

The CDR details collected by the investigating officer regarding mobile phone of co-accused, Muslim, and deceased have not been certified as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, his case is different from co-accused, Muslim. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.05.2023. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the following judgments in the cases of Krishna Vs State(2008) 15 SCC 430 Para15; Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC in support of his case he has submitted that the Apex Court has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively it form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability only the accused committed the alleged offence only then implication of an accused can be justified.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document
1