Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Babu @ Balasubramaniam & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2013

Manubhai Haridas Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 14 March, 2024

2.1 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Tolia, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of (1) 'Wakil Yadav and Another Vs. State of Bihar', reported in (2000) 10 SCC 500, (2) 'Babu @ Balasubramaniam and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in (2013) 8 SCC 60 and (3) 'Shamnsaheb M. Multani Vs. State of Karnataka', reported in (2001) 2 SCC 577.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Ganesh Govindbhai Rohit vs State Of ... on 28 August, 2014

The Apex Court in Babu alias Balasubramaniam & Anr. v. State of   Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 60 was dealing with a case where the  appellant   had   married  to   deceased  and   the   couple  was  residing   in   a   house  owned by the appellant. There were allegations of cruelty and dowry and on the  allegation   that   the   husband   has   administered   poison   which   reached   upto  stomach and intestine while deceased remained unconscious. In this context,  Their  Lordships  held  that  the  death  occurred  around   6.00   am  in  the  house  where the deceased resided with appellant­accused. The presence of appellant­ accused in the house is natural. Besides, it is not contended by the appellant that  he   was   not   present   in   the   house   when   the   incident   occurred.   To   this   fact  Page 22 of 30 R/CR.A/1736/2010 CAV JUDGMENT situation, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is attracted. The Bench, on the same  line, has emphasized and reiterated that when in a given fact­situation how the  person died is in the exclusive personal knowledge of the accused, it is for him  to explain how the death occurred. It would be relevant to reproduce some of  the observations made in this regard, which reads thus ­    "...To this fact situation,  Section  106 of the Evidence   Act is attracted. As to how the deceased received injuries to her   head and how she died must be within the exclusive personal   knowledge   of   A­1   Babu.   It   was   for   him   to   explain   how   the   death occurred. He has not given any plausible explanation for   the death of the deceased in such suspicious circumstances  in   the   house   in   which   he   resided   with   her   and   when   he   was   admittedly   present   in   the   house   at   the   material   time.   This   circumstance must be kept in mind while dealing with this case.   We   are   mindful   of   the   fact   that   this   would   not   relieve   the   prosecution of its burden of proving its case. But, it would apply   to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts   from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the   existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of   his   special   knowledge   regarding   such   facts,   has   offered   an   explanation  which   might   drive   the  court  to  draw  a  different   inference.   In   this   case,   in   our   opinion,   the   prosecution   has   succeeded in proving facts from which reasonable inference can   be drawn that the death of the deceased was homicidal and A­1   Babu was responsible for it. A­1 Babu could have by virtue of   his   special   knowledge   regarding   the   said   facts   offered   an   explanation  from which a different inference could have been   drawn. Since he has not done so, this circumstance adds up to   other circumstances which substantiate the prosecution case."
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelam Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 July, 2015

60. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu alias Balasubramaniam and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 60 have held that when the incident is especially within the knowledge of accused, the burden of proof is on the accused. This circumstance would add up to other proved circumstances which substantiate prosecution case against the accused. Their Lordships have held as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 95 - R Sharma - Full Document

Neelam Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 July, 2015

60. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu alias Balasubramaniam and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 60 have held that when the incident is especially within the knowledge of accused, the burden of proof is on the accused. This circumstance would add up to other proved circumstances which substantiate prosecution case against the accused. Their Lordships have held as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 Next