Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 375 (2.02 seconds)
Documents citing Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971

Anil Kumar vs State on 25 September, 2019

In this regard, reference can be made to Matru v. State of U.P., 1971 (2) SCC 75, wherein it was held, "The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime; such is the instinct of self-Preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the 'accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the F.I.R. was lodged.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajinder Sharma @ R.K vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 June, 2024

"29. TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police. It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant (Matru v. State of U.P. (1971) 2 SCC 75; Mulla v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508 and C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. (2010) 9 SCC 567). The evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh vs State on 27 May, 2022

"16. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of U.P. (1971 (2) SCC 75) identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Shibu Deb vs The State Of Tripura on 2 August, 2019

That apart, it has been observed in Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. The State of U.P. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1050 that the abscondence does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime. Such is the instinct of self- preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally, the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of Page 18 of 50 absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link and completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Tripura High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next