Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 625 (1.85 seconds)
Documents citing Dudh Nath Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 11 February, 1981

State Through Reference vs Ram Singh & Ors. on 13 March, 2014

But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter- evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, Page 130 of 340 CRL. APP. NOS.1398/2013, 1399/2013 AND 1414/2013 accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379] ; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63].‖
Delhi High Court Cites 228 - Cited by 0 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

State vs . on 23 April, 2010

In the present case, I am of the view that the defence witnesses examined by the accused persons have failed to prove that the accused persons were not present at the spot at the time of the incident. They have also failed to prove that the accused persons were so far away, at the relevant time that their presence at the place of incident was not possible as held in 'Duth Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC-911''(Supra) and ''Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1997)1 SCC-283 Supra.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sundar Lal vs State on 12 January, 2018

But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the 30 accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1981CriLJ618, State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple 1984CriLJ4.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 119 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

State vs (1)Mange Ram S/O Ram Pal on 21 March, 2011

On the basis of discussion made above and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the plea of the accused of alibi is not supported by the evidence on record. It was not taken at the first instance and there was just whispering in statement under Section 313 Cr.PC that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Leading the defence evidence of DW2 Amarjit Singh apparently appears to be brought forth just for the sake of plea and does not establish the presence of accused at the house of DW2 as claimed by him. So, the plea of alibi taken by the accused is not acceptable.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next