Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Krishnan And Anr vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 1996

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ashok Kumar on 27 May, 2019

Incidentally, it may be noted that in Krishan vs. State of Kearala (1996) 10 SCC 508 the Court has observed that there may be a case where the proved facts would themselves speak of sharing of common intention and while making such observation one of the learned Judges constituting the Bench has in his concurring opinion merely stated "res ipsa liquitur". Nowhere has it been stated that the rule has applicability in a criminal case and an inference as to an essential ingredient of an offence can be found proved by resorting to the said rule. In our opinion, a case under Section 304-A IPC cannot be decided solely by applying the rule of res ipsa loquitur.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Abhijeet Singh Alias Ankur Likhari vs State Of Punjab on 28 May, 2019

35. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishnan and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56 have held that the applicability and rationale of common intention depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Acts of all accused need not be the same or identically similar. They must be actuated by one and the same common intention. Their Lordships have also explained interrelation between "that act" and "the act". Their Lordships have held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 7 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2019

26. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishnan and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56 have held that the applicability and rationale of common intention depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Acts of all accused need not be the same or identically similar. They must be actuated by one and the same common intention. Their Lordships have also explained inter-relation between "that act" and "the act". Their Lordships have held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Ningappa S/O Basappa @ Basavanneppa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2020

In Krishnan v. State of Kerala [(1996) 10 SCC 508 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1375 : JT (1996) 7 SC 49 613] this Court even assuming that one of the appellants had not caused the injury to the deceased, upheld his conviction under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code holding: (SCC p. 515, para 15) "15. Question is whether it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish commission of overt act to press into service Section 34 of the Penal Code. It is no doubt true that the court likes to know about an overt act to decide whether the person concerned had shared the common intention in question. Question is whether an overt act is always to be established? I am of the view that establishment of an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow Section 34 to operate inasmuch as this section gets attracted when 'a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all'. What has to be, therefore, established by the prosecution is that all the persons concerned had shared the common intention. Court's mind 50 regarding the sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overt act is established qua each of the accused. But then, there may be a case where the proved facts would themselves speak of sharing of common intention: res ipsa loquitur."
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soumik Roy vs State Of West Bengal on 5 March, 2021

19. It is a well known and well followed principle in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the accused has clearly mentioned the presence of two more people in the X-ray room at the time of conducting X-ray of the defacto complainant. They are Kalpana Bhowmik (DW1) and Prasenjit Malik (DW2). The said witnesses confirmed the fact that no such incident took place in the X-ray room in their presence. It is very surprising that the prosecution did not cross examine the defence witnesses and contradict their statement on oath with their previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to raise a doubt about their credibility. Standing in such a situation, I can safely say that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has proved the presence of the victim 12 and the accused in LASCO during 8.48 am, however it failed to prove the acquisitions of rape on the accused. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in MANU/SC/0505/2003 : (2003) 7 SCC 56 was pleased to hold that the doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favour other than the truth and to constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from any over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014

27. An accused has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". This Court in Krishnan and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2003) 7 SCC 56, held that the doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth and to constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next