Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 253 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 March, 2006

The State Of Maharashtra vs Kamlakar Tanaji Shinde on 7 September, 2010

Mr. Mane submitted that the time gap between the point of time when the deceased was last seen alive with the accused and the point of time the dead body was found, is large, hence, there is every possibility that someone else committed the murder. Moreover, he stressed that in the present case, it is extremely difficult to give the exact time of death of the deceased. He further pointed out that 26 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:24:19 ::: conf4-09.doc as the body was not sent for postmortem it was not possible to ascertain the exact time of death of the deceased, he argued that in such case, it cannot be said that the accused was responsible for the death of Draupadi. Mr. Mane relied on the decision in the case of Ramreddy (Supra) wherein the accused came to be acquitted as the exact time of death of the deceased could not be stated. We have carefully gone through the said decision and we find that it was not the sole ground on which the accused came to be acquitted. The circumstances in the said case were not reliable and clinching to prove the guilt of the accused and the ig said observations were made in the peculiar facts of the said case. Such is not the case in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 8 - V Tehsilramani - Full Document

Ravi Kumar @ Sonu And Ors. vs State on 15 May, 2013

32. To the same effect are the decisions rendered in Chander Pal and Anr. vs. State and Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav @ Mukho Yadav @ Raju vs. State (supra) relied upon by the Appellants‟ counsel, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. vs. State of A.P. (supra). In the said decision for the first time it was held by the Supreme Court with reference to last seen evidence that where last seen evidence is the solitary evidence, the Court should look for some corroboration. In para 27 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 18 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Dharmesh Vallabhbhai Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 December, 2025

48. It is also a settled position of law that the last seen together theory is only one of the circumstances in a case pertaining to circumstantial evidence and that it must form part of a chain of circumstances that points only towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It is also a settled principle of law that the last seen together theory really comes into play when the time-gap between the point in time the accused was last seen with the deceased is in close proximity to the body of the deceased being found. This is because when the time- gap is small, any other person, being the author of the crime, becomes an impossibility. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, relied upon by the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Naresh Prabhubhai Golani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 December, 2025

48. It is also a settled position of law that the last seen together theory is only one of the circumstances in a case pertaining to circumstantial evidence and that it must form part of a chain of circumstances that points only towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It is also a settled principle of law that the last seen together theory really comes into play when the time-gap between the point in time the accused was last seen with the deceased is in close proximity to the body of the deceased being found. This is because when the time- gap is small, any other person, being the author of the crime, becomes an impossibility. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, relied upon by the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Naresh Prabhubhai Golani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 15 December, 2025

48. It is also a settled position of law that the last seen together theory is only one of the circumstances in a case pertaining to circumstantial evidence and that it must form part of a chain of circumstances that points only towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It is also a settled principle of law that the last seen together theory really comes into play when the time-gap between the point in time the accused was last seen with the deceased is in close proximity to the body of the deceased being found. This is because when the time- gap is small, any other person, being the author of the crime, becomes an impossibility. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, relied upon by the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2013

In the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2006 SC 1656, it discloses that where the evidence relating to the witnesses with regard to last seen circumstances was belatedly recorded. Hence, their evidence was disbelieved. The facts and the ratio laid down in the case is distinguishable from the case on hand. Therefore, the evidence with regard to last seen circumstance was disbelieved.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K S Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next