Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 170 (5.99 seconds)
Documents citing Aftab Ahmad Anasari vs State Of Uttaranchal on 12 January, 2010

Mathesh vs State Represented By on 22 November, 2017

In Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal [(2010) 2 SCC 583], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if bloodstains are found on visible part of clothes worn, normally such person would not move around with those clothes and further the appellant therein had not denied the said fact in the course of his examination under Section 313 CrPC. However, in the case on hand, this Court already held that the arrest of the accused at 2.00 p.m. on 12.08.2013 itself is doubtful and so also the recoery of incriminating articles viz., M.Os.1 to 4 and as such, the said decision has no application to the case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Complainant Have Relied Upon The ... vs . on 22 July, 2013

It is to be noted that in the last mentioned decision of Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal (cited supra), the observation made is to the following effect:­ In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PS­Alipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 27 of 61 howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court...........'(Emphasis supplied).
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asar Mohammad . vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 October, 2018

The   decision   of   the   Privy   Council   in Pulukuri   Kotayya  v.  King   Emperor32  is   the   most   quoted authority   for   supporting   the   interpretation   that   the   ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which   the   object   was   produced,   the   knowledge   of   the accused   as   to   it,   but   the   information   given   must   relate distinctly to that effect.” The   similar   principle   has   been   laid   down   in  State   of Maharashtra  v.  Suresh33,  State   of   Punjab  v.  Gurnam   Kaur34, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal35, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi)36, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)37 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam38.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Charandas Swami vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2017

“35. …It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in [Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872]. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the 'fact discovered' envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.” The similar principle has been laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh , State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) , Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 37 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Om Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 March, 2015

The similar principle has been laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000 1 SCC 471), State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur (2009) 11 SCC 225, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, (2013) 7 SCC 417.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 78 - S Karol - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next