Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 159 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Ganesh Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 October, 2001

Pahal Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 2 April, 2019

"15. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eye- witness's account is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045; : (1992 AIR SCW 2417), Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 : ( 1995 AIR SCW 2504), State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, AIR 1999 SC 3535 : (1999 AIR SCW 3536) State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471; and Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731 : (2001 AIR SCW 5251)."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - B K Shrivastava - Full Document

Narendra Kumar Yadav @ Narendra Prasad ... vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2019

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See: State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of UP v. Dr Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of MP, (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]."
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 11 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Bablu @ Narendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2019

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
Allahabad High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.M.Ibray @Abdulla Ibrayi @ Bhai vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2019

In Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2002)1 SCC 731], the Supreme Court considered the case law on the subject relying on the strength of the presumption that the court may dispense with direct proof of certain such facts as can be safely presumed to be necessarily existing, by applying the logic and wisdom underlying Section 114. Where offences, more than one, have taken place as part of one transaction, recent and unexplained possession of property belonging to the deceased may enable a presumption being raised against the accused that he is guilty, not only of the offence of theft or dacoity, but also of offences forming part of the same Crl.A.No.282 of 2015 :-17-:
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Shaffique - Full Document

Akhtar @ Bhoora vs State Of U.P. on 25 February, 2019

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
Allahabad High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next