Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Nathiya vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police,Vellore on 8 November, 2016

Gaffer Alias Kana And Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2022

79. Tested on the touchstone of the above judicially evolved parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence essential to bring home the guilt of an accused person on a criminal charge, as noted in Nathiya (supra), we arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to meet the standards, i.e. to establish the circumstances of a conclusive nature consistent with only the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with all reasonable hypothesis of their innocence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 26 September, 2022

(47) In cases Nathiya Vs. State (2016) 10 SCC 298, Bhim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 4 SCC 281 (para 23), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (paras 120 and 121), State of West Bengal Vs. Dipak Halder, (2009) 7 SCC (Three Judge Bench) the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence:
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Shyopal vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 14 February, 2017

In Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), it was alleged by the prosecution that there was illicit relationship between wife of the deceased and her paramour (both appellant-accused), eventually led to their allegedly killing the (21 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] deceased. Body of the deceased found floating in a well. The Hon'ble Apex court has observed that the well is away from residence of the deceased, for which any definitive presumption against his wife, as a conspirator of crime, cannot be drawn without the risk of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as contemplated under Section 106, Evidence Act. PW-3 Packiammal stated to have heard shrieks of deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall inside the well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter, the appellants were seen in the vicinity of the well. Noticeably, chappals of deceased were found by the side of the well. PW-4 stated that when dead body was recovered from the well, both the appellants were present and wife of deceased, was seen weeping by his side. Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it would be wholly unsafe to sustain their conviction and acquitted the appellants giving the benefit of doubt. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, this is also not of much help to the appellant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Mathur vs State on 16 August, 2017

50. It is settled law that when the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating circumstances should be conclusive in nature and point only towards the guilt of the accused and incompatible with his innocence. To put it tersely, the circumstances must show that the accused, in all probability, must have committed the offence. [See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (paragraph 153); Bodhraj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 (paragraphs 10 and 11); Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 (paragraph 12); Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (paragraphs 13-15); Prem Singh v. State, MANU/DE/1341/2016 (paragraphs 46-50); and Nathiya v. State, Crl.A. 696/2012 & 180/2013 Page 26 of 30 (2016) 10 SCC 298 (paragraphs 25-27)].
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next