Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 424 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Dhanapal & Ors vs State By Public Prosecutor, Madras on 1 September, 2009

Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 22 October, 2020

"31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ajit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 September, 2022

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that benefit of doubt ensues to accused. If two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must be granted to accused. It has been further held that if two views are possible, the order of acquittal should not be set aside by High Court because there is double presumption of innocence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 39 in Dhanapal v. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401 while dealing with scope of interference at appellate stage has held:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Somegowda on 23 February, 2022

11. The learned sessions judge has referred to the evidence of PW.18 - Doddeeregowda who has deposed that accused No.1 has made confession i.e., extra judicial confession before him. PW.18 has stated that accused No.1 was very much present on the date of incident and they went to the place where dead body of deceased - Chikkanna was found. Learned Sessions judge further referred to the evidence of PW.18, wherein he has clearly stated that no articles were recovered in his presence. The learned sessions judge has referred to the evidence of investigating officer, other witnesses and also relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein principles regarding appreciation of evidence in the cases involving circumstantial evidence was considered. Learned sessions judge also relied on the decision regarding what is the motive to commit murder of deceased is to be ascertained and what is the nature of proof required in such cases for arrival of a conclusion and in this regard, learned sessions judge has relied 15 upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BABU referred supra and also decision in the case of DHANAPAL v. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS6 and also decision in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P.7 and also judgment of this court in the case of A.R.CHANDRA (EDAPATHYA RAMACHANDRA) AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER)8 wherein it is clearly held that when there is no direct evidence in respect of commission of crime, the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence and prosecution story of illicit relationship could not be proved and prosecution has failed to prove any one of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt.
Karnataka High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next