Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh @ Bhure vs State(G.N.C.T) Of Delhi on 28 April, 2023

Md. Hafiz Khan vs State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2023

14. Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the ultimate quest. In the present case, on the basis of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce sufficient evidences so as to prove Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.76 of 1996 dt.14-07-2023 16/18 guilt of the appellants. The presence of the informant (PW 6), who contends to be the sole eye witness, at the place of occurrence is itself doubtful in light of the fact that the assertion about using the scooter is not corroborated by any other material available on the record. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record the testimony of the tea stall owner/worker, who would have been the most competent witnesses to testify about the presence of PW 6 or PW 5 or the deceased and about the use of scooter by PW 6 to reach the place of occurrence. Non- examination of such material witnesses, is in our view, indicative of falsehood and suggests suppression of true version about the occurrence. Furthermore, there are severe latches and loopholes in the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses and they have failed to make out a foolproof case for conviction. There is complete absence of any material to establish the missing causative link to hold the appellants guilty. There are yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution has failed to elevate the case from the realm of 'may be true' to 'must be true' as is the requirement set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh @ Bhure versus State (G.N.C.T) of Delhi, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2011. The prosecution has miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidences to prove the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.76 of 1996 dt.14-07-2023 17/18 connecting chain of circumstances as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is unreasonable, unwanted, undesirable, not sought for, arbitrary, whimsical and alien to the concept of our criminal jurisprudence. Holding the appellants hostage to the uncorroborated allegations and latches on part of the prosecution is against justice, fairness and reasonableness. As such, we are of the firm view that the dark clouds of suspicion looming large on the story of the prosecution have poured down heavily to wash away the entire dust ridden allegations. Hence, the conviction of the appellants in the present case is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Ishtiag Khan vs State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2023

14. Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the ultimate quest. In the present case, on the basis of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce sufficient evidences so as to prove Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.76 of 1996 dt.14-07-2023 16/18 guilt of the appellants. The presence of the informant (PW 6), who contends to be the sole eye witness, at the place of occurrence is itself doubtful in light of the fact that the assertion about using the scooter is not corroborated by any other material available on the record. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record the testimony of the tea stall owner/worker, who would have been the most competent witnesses to testify about the presence of PW 6 or PW 5 or the deceased and about the use of scooter by PW 6 to reach the place of occurrence. Non- examination of such material witnesses, is in our view, indicative of falsehood and suggests suppression of true version about the occurrence. Furthermore, there are severe latches and loopholes in the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses and they have failed to make out a foolproof case for conviction. There is complete absence of any material to establish the missing causative link to hold the appellants guilty. There are yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution has failed to elevate the case from the realm of 'may be true' to 'must be true' as is the requirement set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh @ Bhure versus State (G.N.C.T) of Delhi, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2011. The prosecution has miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidences to prove the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.76 of 1996 dt.14-07-2023 17/18 connecting chain of circumstances as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is unreasonable, unwanted, undesirable, not sought for, arbitrary, whimsical and alien to the concept of our criminal jurisprudence. Holding the appellants hostage to the uncorroborated allegations and latches on part of the prosecution is against justice, fairness and reasonableness. As such, we are of the firm view that the dark clouds of suspicion looming large on the story of the prosecution have poured down heavily to wash away the entire dust ridden allegations. Hence, the conviction of the appellants in the present case is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Vijayakumar P vs State Of Karnataka By on 20 March, 2024

148/2010 and connected matter, has held that the suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof and the same is relied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi in Crl.A.No.575/2011 and 13 connected matter, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in the case of Satish Mehra stated above has held that when there is no material placed on record for framing of charge, the Court can discharge the accused without holding for trial. Therefore, when there is no material placed on record for framing of charge by the prosecution, the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 April, 2024

Accused and the Need v. State of Maharashtra, and 97 of Corroboration (2010) 14 SCC 641 Jameel Ahmed v. State of 49 Rajasthan, (2003) 9 SCC 673 Grant of Bail in a Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. 6, 14, 17 and 21 UAPA Offence Where v. Union of India, 2023 There is a Confession INSC 382 Circumstantial Pradeep Kumar v. State of 27 and 29 Evidence Chhattisgarh, (2023) 5 SCC 350 Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT 71 and 73 of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 Disclosure Sukhvinder Singh v. State 16 BAIL APPLN. 1130/2023 Signature Not Verified Page 11 of 43 Digitally Signed By:AMIT SHARMA Signing Date:02.04.2024 17:56:41 of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152 Santosh alias Bhure v. State 80 and 81 (G.N.C.T.)
Delhi High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next