Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002

Thavaraj Pandian, Palani, Raja And ... vs State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2002

26. On the other hand, on the strength of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Crl) 220 (A.DEVENDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU) and 2000 AIR SCW 2060 (EZHIL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU), it is contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the facts and circumstances of the case, in so far as the recovery of the jewels from A-1 to A-3 is concerned, a presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act would arise and as such, a presumption can be drawn not only for the fact that the accused were in possession of the stolen articles after committing robbery, but also committed the murder of the deceased in the absence of any explanation from the accused.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Sudha @ Sudhakar, Balaji, Balaji @ Mohan ... vs State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ... on 30 January, 2003

10.9. Having held that the testimony of the injured eye witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), as well as the evidence of the Mahazar witness (P.W.7), and that of the investigation Officer (P.W.14) are trustworthy and the recovery of the properties of P.W.1, namely leather cash bag (M.O.1), rexin bag (M.O.2), checked lungi (M.O.4), and the towel (M.O.5) from the accused 1 to 4 corroborates with that of the evidence of P.W.s.1, 2, 7 and 14, the absence of any explanation by the accused for possession of such material objects, namely properties of P.W.1, further strengthens the case of the prosecution, as it is well settled in law that absence of proper explanation for the possession of the property stolen leads a presumption against the accused under Section 114(3) Illustration (A) of the Indian Evidence Act, as held by the Apex court in SANJAY Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 449; GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 2031; and EZHIL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 2799.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Bachchi Singh & Another vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 30 July, 2010

In Ezhil & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 2002 Cri. L.J. 2799, the robbery and murder took place in the night intervening 10/11th March, 1994. The articles of the deceased were recovered from the possession of the appellants on 11th March, 1994. There was no direct evidence of the appellants being involved in the murder and robbery. Noticing that the possession by the appellants was very much proximate in point of time to death of the deceased to constitute whole thing an integral affair, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - V K Jain - Full Document

Sudha @ Sudhakar vs State on 30 January, 2003

2), as well as the evidence of the Mahazar witness (P.W.7), and that of the investigation Officer (P.W.14) are trustworthy and the recovery of the properties of P.W.1, namely leather cash bag (M.O.1 ), rexin bag (M.O.2), checked lungi (M.O.4), and the towel (M.O.5) from the accused 1 to 4 corroborates with that of the evidence of P.W.s.1, 2, 7 and 14, the absence of any explanation by the accused for possession of such material objects, namely properties of P.W.1, further strengthens the case of the prosecution, as it is well settled in law that absence of proper explanation for the possession of the property stolen leads a presumption against the accused under Section 114 (3) Illustration (A) of the Indian Evidence Act, as held by the Apex court in SANJAY Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 4 49; GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 2031; and EZHIL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 2799.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Thavaraj Pandian vs State on 16 December, 2002

26. On the other hand, on the strength of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Crl) 220 (A.DEVENDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU) and 2000 AIR SCW 2060 (EZHIL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU), it is contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the facts and circumstances of the case, in so far as the recovery of the jewels from A-1 to A-3 is concerned, a presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act would arise and as such, a presumption can be drawn not only for the fact that the accused were in possession of the stolen articles after committing robbery, but also committed the murder of the deceased in the absence of any explanation from the accused.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document
1   2 Next